Partial Identification

Patient world models used for clinical trial simulation can agree on transition kernels and arm-specific risks, yet disagree on the fraction of patients harmed by switching treatment---the counterfactual quantity that matters for intervention-aware reasoning. We audit this reliability gap in a two-stage shared-response SCM: a categorical intermediate health state is followed by common terminal care. Under independent stages, the sharp harm interval has closed-form endpoints for at most three intermediate states, with an exactness boundary at four states. Declared dependence and response-mismatch budgets yield calibrated outer bounds when stage independence or complete mediation is relaxed; in a symmetric three-state model the entire sensitivity frontier is sharp, $[0,\min\{1/2,1/3+(ρ+δ)/2\}]$, and shows exactly how budgets erase the gain over endpoint-only bounds. Two eight-variable response LPs propagate interventional uncertainty for finite-sample audits. Exact witnesses verify attainability. On public clinical simulators (EpiCare; sepsis), native configurations show little resolved stage dependence and no additional joint-compatibility gain over pairwise transport---honest negative results for reliability claims. All experiments are locally reproducible; guarantees remain conditional on the stated causal model. The results provide a concrete protocol for deciding when a patient world model is safe to trust for counterfactual harm.

A central goal when designing treatment policies is often to "do no harm", that is, to avoid interventions that improve average outcomes while worsening outcomes for some individuals. A widely used notion for harm is the fraction of negatively affected (FNA), defined as the probability that an intervention decreases an individual's outcome. However, in many applications, treatments operate through mediators, and a single "total" FNA can obscure whether harm arises primarily through direct pathways or indirect (mediator-induced) pathways. In this work, we introduce a path-specific analogue of the FNA. For this, we disentangle total harm into direct and indirect harm in causal mediation settings. However, these quantities depend on joint distributions of potential outcomes that are not point-identified even in randomised controlled trials. As a remedy, we develop a novel partial identification framework for direct and indirect FNA. In our framework, we (i) derive sharp Makarov bounds for the FNA, and (ii) propose a semiparametrically efficient estimator with valid confidence intervals for these bounds under mild margin conditions. We demonstrate our framework across various numerical experiments. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to study path-specific decomposition of causal harm and to develop an orthogonal inference framework for its analysis.

Successful agent execution need not identify which future product improvement its user would value. We present a decision-specific audit that maps a declared observation channel and product-value contrast to compatible intervals and witness populations. Its foundations are established identification and decision theory; the contribution is an executable measurement workflow and a controlled study of its limits. A frozen experiment makes 4,800 requests to two pinned model snapshots on shared synthetic tasks. All 36 conservative primary intervals remain unresolved despite different execution accuracy. An exploratory 2,400-call follow-up records supplied preferences and resolves three of nine comparisons per model. A deterministic extractor resolves seven of nine without model calls or calibration observations, exposing unnecessary uncertainty introduced by model-generated reports. A further 14,400 controlled multinomial simulations distinguish structural ambiguity from weak identification and finite calibration precision. We propose a source-labeled decision receipt and provide an offline viewer for inspecting the audit. These results motivate preserving decision-relevant structured input and diagnosing why a decision is unresolved before collecting more telemetry. The study contains no human participants or real customer outcomes. Full proofs, raw model provenance, controlled experiments, and reproducible analyses accompany the report.

AI and large language models can recover clinically meaningful features from electronic health records (EHRs), but predictive usefulness does not establish admissibility for causal inference. We introduce information set emulation: an AI typed lift attaches source evidence, clinical and recording times, decision-time availability, representation version, proposed causal roles, and unresolved ambiguity to extracted features under a locked target trial. Causal certificates record auditable evidence for those roles. Features with unresolved downstream roles are routed to compatible reporting or separate analyses. Typed evidence defines an observational fiber of causal worlds consistent with the observed law. The locked scalar estimand maps this fiber to a compatible image whose squared Chebyshev radius equals the residual minimax mean squared error when the image is nonempty and compact. This classical identity provides a target-specific measure of information ambiguity. The contribution is its integration with a joint EHR observation map and an auditable certificate architecture. Under explicit exchangeability, positivity, and nuisance-consistency conditions, we give identification and cross-fitted augmented inverse probability weighted estimation, distinguishing empirical and population targets. An EHR compression-drift identity separates the roles of frame presence, treatment assignment, and outcome observation. Artificial simulations and a common-law finite-world example illustrate estimation failures and information-radius reduction. Synthetic Phase 0 notes demonstrate audit diagnostics; a separate role-specific analysis spread illustrates routing and is not an exact fiber radius. All experiments are synthetic. The framework specifies when reconstructed information can support a point claim and when compatible reporting is required.

Prequential adaptation of frozen tabular foundation models under temporal drift, with each label revealed only after prediction, helps some deployments and harms others, yet current practice does not predict which. We study the sources and limits of these gains. A diagnostic anatomy attributes gains to four recurring mechanisms under a streaming protocol that removes three optimistic biases and quantifies a fourth. Within an agnostic total-variation drift class, the target conditional is only partially identified: its identified-set diameter, the \emph{wall}, is irreducible from unlabeled data uniformly in sample size. A second, orthogonal $L^2$ projection wall quantifies what the frozen representation cannot express. Two canonical mechanism priors collapse the first wall. Under stated nuisance-rate conditions, the wall can be estimated from labeled historical windows at a $\sqrt N$ rate above the margin threshold $\gamma^\star=d_0/(2\alpha_s)$. At $\gamma=0$, the conditional lower-bound program depends on an open affinity estimate; the positive-margin lower branch also remains open. Semi-synthetic data illustrate the finite-sample mechanism with calibrated exponents. Stream-level proxies on eight industrial streams fall on the difficult side under a stated roughness bound, while the equality case $\gamma=\gamma^\star$ remains unresolved.

Repeated-sampling evaluations increasingly extrapolate pass@k far beyond the number n of samples collected per problem. We show that, in the pooled/random-task conditional-Binomial model, fixed-n success counts identify only the n free moments of the latent per-task success distribution. Consequently, direct pass@k is identified for k <= n, but generic extrapolated pass@k, tail exponents, and tail constants are not identified for k > n, even with arbitrarily many exchangeable tasks at the same rollout budget. This is stronger than the observation that the usual estimator is undefined beyond n: it characterizes the information missing from the fixed-depth count-law experiment. We give exact count-law-preserving constructions with incompatible extrapolations, state the exceptional unique-extension case, and compute sharp population identified intervals through Hausdorff principal representations. On the public 10,000-rollout-per-problem release of Brown et al., counterfactual n = 16 evaluations leave failure at k = 1000 ambiguous by factors from 1.5 to over 2,600 across four MATH/GSM8K/CodeContests configurations. The calibration shows that intermediate-scale failure share alone does not determine width. Our result does not reject parametric inference-time scaling laws; it supplies the nonparametric baseline against which their assumptions can be evaluated. We give an exact, conservative one-coordinate finite-task confidence certificate and a reporting standard separating direct estimates, identified sets, and model-conditioned forecasts.

Experimental design is commonly framed as choosing the experiment expected to provide the most information. Under partial identifiability however, persistent nuisance uncertainty can make the same observation carry different structural meanings. We introduce Resolution-Aware Experimental Design (RAED), which selects an experiment by the smallest expected nonempty structural candidate set achievable subject to false-exclusion control. We prove an exact cross-nuisance aliasing separation: an experiment can be preferred by structural and full-latent information gain, average classification, and nuisance-marginalized informativeness while having arbitrarily poorer valid structural resolution. RAED nevertheless preserves the expected ordering under a genuine composite Blackwell comparison. To make this criterion operational, we develop a learned score-based implementation with finite-sample nuisance-average and positive-tail calibration, and characterize a rare-tail sample-complexity obstruction. Under constrained sensing, two subsurface-flow benchmarks exhibit genuine RAED--expected-information-gain (EIG) experiment-selection disagreements, with the clearest and largest held-out resolution differences in WCA. In a fluvial benchmark, tail protection changes the selected physical experiment and replaces hard-region false exclusions primarily with explicit ambiguity. In a mechanistic methane-oxidation benchmark, a prospectively specified 5% false-exclusion tolerance also yields a nontrivial finite-sample population guarantee for tail-sensitive nuisance risk, with 95% joint confidence across all three structural families.

Compositional reliability bounds for multi-agent systems multiply component reliabilities, a step licensed by a conditional-independence assumption that is routinely stated and rarely tested. We test it. Two instances of one model, in a two-agent handoff, co-fail on 90.0% of the missions on which either fails (log OR 6.66, 95% CI [6.38, 7.00]; phi 0.916), in a preregistered evaluation of 18,000 missions scored by deterministic code with no LLM judge. Substituting a different model reduces the association in six of six contrasts; substituting a different vendor, model already different, does not -- a registered hypothesis reported as a null. The error is signed and runs against the operator: positive dependence inflates joint failure above the independence product, so redundancy is over-credited exactly when components share a model. The assumption-free alternative is often vacuous, and fitting a dependence model is worse: we prove a bootstrap bound on a fitted model's functional loses coverage of the truth as n grows, the identification gap being O(1) while the bootstrap haircut is O(n^{-1/2}). More data makes such a certificate worse, with no visible symptom. We give a finite-sample certificate assuming no dependence structure: a linear program over the joint, over a Bonferroni-Clopper-Pearson box around measured co-execution moments. It is sound, sharp for the information supplied, and monotone in the moment family. Enriching ten moment functionals to fourteen narrows the identified interval by 85.7% and lifts the certified floor from 0.2455 to 0.4116. A companion anytime-valid certificate holds type-I error at 0.0471 under optional stopping. Common dependence statistics are marginal-bounded and can reverse an apparent ordering of conditions when the compared agents fail at different rates. Contracts, scoring code, analysis scripts, and the preregistration are released.

Probabilities of causation (PoCs) characterize individual causal responses that cannot be directly observed and therefore generally require partial identification. Tian and Pearl first derived theoretically sharp bounds for binary PoCs, including the probability of necessity (PN), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS). Mueller et al. subsequently tightened the bounds for binary PNS by incorporating causal information encoded in covariates and mediators. More recently, Li and Pearl, as well as Shu et al., extended PoCs to multivalued settings and derived corresponding theoretical bounds. These developments naturally raise the question of whether additional causal knowledge can further tighten the bounds in multivalued settings. This paper addresses this question by deriving tighter bounds for multivalued PoCs through the incorporation of causal information encoded in covariates and mediators. We illustrate the theoretical results with toy examples, while simulation studies further demonstrate that the proposed bounds are tighter than existing nonbinary bounds.

Predictive machine learning (ML) models are increasingly used to aid human decision-makers across various high-risk domains such as healthcare and criminal justice. There is a growing recognition of the need to evaluate the causal impact of deploying these systems on downstream outcomes, such as patient survival or crime recidivism. Randomized control trials (RCTs) can provide high-quality evidence on the impact of a deployed model, but they run into a challenge: it is often infeasible to run repeated trials when models are updated or retrained to improve predictive performance. In this work, we present a partial-identification approach to using prior RCT data to construct bounds on the causal effect of a new model. The core innovation in our approach is to leverage assumptions relating fine-grained predictive accuracy to downstream outcomes. We do so via two monotonicity assumptions: first, on individual-level `counterfactual correctness' (all else being equal, a correct prediction leads to non-inferior outcomes); and second, on the relation between subgroup predictive performance and outcomes, interpretable as an assumption regarding trust in model outputs. We demonstrate our method with a simulation study, illustrating how incorporating this information can lead to more informative bounds compared to prior work.

We study linear regression when the regressor is latent and observed only through multiple noisy measurements, each a smooth but possibly nonlinear function of the latent variable. The problem is acute in the measurement of occupational exposure to artificial intelligence, where competing scores yield downstream estimates that differ by a factor of eleven. A regression on any single measurement recovers a source-specific coefficient rather than the structural one. We fix the latent scale by requiring the consensus measurement function to be linear and bound the remaining curvature heterogeneity across sources relative to slope. Under this bound, the structural coefficient lies in a closed-form interval centered at a symmetric cross-source estimator. The interval is invariant to unknown source loadings, and its half-width is second order in the curvature bound and sharp to the same order. With at least four measurements, the bound is estimable from the joint distribution of the sources through a split-instrument auxiliary regression, and Imbens-Manski confidence intervals with the Stoye critical value attain uniform coverage over the curvature class, including at the point-identified boundary. The application matches six exposure measures to an American Community Survey panel of 8.88 million person-year observations for 2015 to 2024. The post-2022 employment coefficient changes sign between the language-model measures and the Webb patent-text measure, and an ex ante factor-analytic rule separates the Webb measure as a distinct construct. The five retained sources yield a loading-invariant consensus coefficient of -0.239, with a partial-identification half-width of 1.23 percent of the point estimate, or 1.88 percent at the one-sided 95 percent upper bound on the curvature. We read the application as measurement reconciliation rather than as a causal estimate of AI displacement.

Large language models increasingly provide labels, evaluations, and feedback for tasks specified in natural language. When a specification admits multiple readings but the supervision channel does not reveal which is operative, additional labels reduce sampling error without resolving the resulting identification problem. We introduce Natural Language PAC (NL-PAC), a framework that uses a fixed model's thresholded decoding law to define admissible labels and candidate targets. The probability that multiple labels are admissible equals the diameter of the pointwise-admissible target class, and under target-blind supervision every learner incurs worst-case risk of at least half this diameter, at every sample size; the exact randomized minimax risk over this class is attained by a data-independent strategy. Finite-sample confidence bounds make these quantities certifiable from held-out unlabeled inputs. In a frozen Qwen~2.5--3B audit, one prespecified prompt yields a positive model-relative certificate, whereas a paraphrase and exact-rule controls yield zero. A held-out bridge audit finds that supplied candidate reading clauses fail the admissibility condition needed to transfer the certificate to coherent readings. The guarantee is specific to the audited model, prompt, threshold, and input distribution; extending it to human interpretations requires external validation.

Finding the source of failures, known as Root Cause Analysis (RCA), is essential for identifying the root causes of anomalies and maintaining the reliability of complex systems. While causal theory has advanced data-driven RCA, existing frameworks assume causal sufficiency, failing to account for the unobserved latent variables prevalent in real-world environments. To address this gap, we propose PAG-RCA. This framework models system failures as parametric interventions over Partial Ancestral Graphs (PAGs) to perform RCA in the presence of latent variables. We use standard causal identification algorithms to find the source of failures by quantifying causal effects over the PAG. When an effect is identifiable, candidate root causes are ranked based on their exact intervention effects. When effects are structurally unidentifiable, our framework (for the first time in the RCA literature) integrates partial identification to evaluate and score candidates using analytical causal bounds. By integrating latent variables and partial identification at once our framework ensures robust RCA even under data scarcity and latent-variable scenarios where traditional methods degrade. Evaluations on synthetic data, microservice anomaly benchmarks and power-grid cascading failures demonstrate that PAG-RCA consistently outperforms state-of-the-art data-driven baselines. By improving data-driven RCA performance under data scarcity, this methodology advances reliable automated diagnostics in partially observable complex networks.

This paper provides identification results to characterize a fairness-accuracy (FA) frontier, and statistical inference tools to test hypotheses and build a confidence set for the FA-frontier, when outcomes are observed only for selected individuals. When the selection process is unrestricted but loss is measured in specific ways, we provide a characterization of the sharp identification region of the FA-frontier. Under an assumption of unconfoundedness conditional on observables (and unrestricted loss functions), we obtain point identification and propose a debiased machine learning estimator, derive its asymptotic distribution, and show how this can be used to carry out inference for the FA-frontier. In work in progress, we extend the partial identification results to a broader class of loss functions.

Advertising platforms use randomized lift tests to measure incrementality, but privacy-preserving reporting systems degrade the observed signal through match-rate loss, linkability loss, attribution-window loss, aggregation-threshold suppression, randomized reporting noise, and segment-heterogeneous signal loss. This paper formulates privacy-constrained advertising measurement as a robust causal decision problem under the mentioned signal losses. Given a randomized experiment and an ambiguity set for privacy-induced degradation, the framework projects the observation-compatible fiber of clean/unfiltered experimental worlds onto the incrementality functional and returns certified, rejected, and unresolved decisions. The main result gives a sharp decision frontier. Reports outside the frontier support uniformly valid certification or rejection, whereas reports inside it contain too little information for any method to uniformly distinguish above-threshold incrementality from non-incrementality. Supporting results give finite-sample certification, sample-complexity guarantees, a minimax lower bound showing that signal loss reduces effective information, and a reporting-granularity tradeoff. On 2.0M Criteo Uplift rows and the 64K-row Hillstrom email experiment, clean conversion lift is positive in both datasets, with lifts 0.00112 and 0.00495, respectively. Population certification survives mild degradation in Criteo and severe degradation in Hillstrom, while all considered finite-sample stress settings in both datasets remain unresolved after simultaneous uncertainty and reporting noise are included. Overall, the research contributes a decision-theoretic layer for privacy-aware incrementality measurement whose output is the strongest causal-claim justified by degraded ads signals.

The instrumental-variables (IV) setting is standard for partial identification of causal effects when unobserved confounding makes point identification impossible. Existing approaches face methodological bottlenecks: closed-form bound estimands are required -- e.g., Balke-Pearl equations in binary IV -- and even when available, designing accurate estimators requires manual effort tailored to each estimand. While direct Bayesian inference of the causal effects, instead of the bounds, circumvents these challenges, it is often computationally intensive and suffers from high prior sensitivity or under-dispersed posteriors. As a remedy, we introduce IV-ICL, an amortized Bayesian in-context learning method that learns the marginal posterior distribution of the causal effects directly and derives bounds as its quantiles. Unlike standard variational inference that optimizes exclusive KL divergence, amortized Bayesian inference minimizes the expected inclusive KL, a mass-covering objective. We empirically observe that optimizing inclusive KL can recover the entire identified set across diverse data-generating processes, while exclusive-KL (e.g. with variational inference) of the same Bayesian formulation collapses onto a single mode and fails to cover the identified set. We evaluate IV-ICL on synthetic and semi-synthetic IV benchmarks and show it produces intervals that are more reliably valid and more informative compared to efficient semi-parametric, Bayesian, and plug-in baselines, at 20-500x lower inference time. Beyond methodology, we propose a procedure to convert randomized controlled trials into IV benchmarks with provably preserved ground-truth causal effects that enables a more realistic evaluation of partial-identification methods.

Marketplace platforms routinely evaluate pricing and allocation policies using logged observational data, yet strong offline performance does not imply that a policy is safe to deploy. In real-time bidding (RTB) marketplaces, reserve-price and floor-policy changes affect not only revenue but also fill, advertiser value, budget pacing, and competition across auctions, creating feedback and interference. The central problem is therefore not to estimate whether a policy improves an offline metric, but to determine whether the available evidence justifies direct launch or only further validation. In this regard, we propose a support-aware decision-support system (DSS) that distinguishes promising from actionable evidence. The framework integrates replay, support-aware off-policy evaluation (OPE), conservative lower-bound ranking, multi-sided guardrails, out-of-time validation, sensitivity analysis, and interference-aware validation design into a claim-preserving pipeline that outputs a launch-readiness classification rather than a single performance estimate. Applying the framework to iPinYou-style RTB logs, we identify a margin-gated floor policy as the leading candidate, with a 47.7% replay yield lift, a 45.8% conservative lower-tail lift, and stable out-of-time performance. However, the framework does not recommend direct launch. A decision-rule ablation shows that simplified pipelines select the same policy but incorrectly recommend deployment, leaving key causal assumptions unresolved. In contrast, the proposed DSS selects the same policy but changes the action to online validation, reflecting missing evidence on propensities, bidder response, and interference. Overall, the contribution is a reproducible DSS protocol that prevents decision overclaim under partial identification and converts offline evaluation into an auditable, action-oriented recommendation.

Modern LLM APIs often reveal only top-$K$ logit scores and censor the remaining vocabulary. We study the per-position distribution-recovery limits of this access model. For censoring threshold $τ$, the compatible teacher distributions form an identified set whose total-variation diameter is exactly $U_K=(V-K)\exp(τ)/(Z_A+(V-K)\exp(τ))$, where $Z_A$ is the observed partition function. For KL recovery, we give a computable binary-endpoint lower bound and an asymptotically matching small-ambiguity upper bound, with an extension to reference-aware attackers. Experiments on a Qwen3 math-reasoning teacher reveal a layered extraction hierarchy: on-task top-$K$ distillation recovers 12% of private capability, full-logit distillation recovers 56% despite 99% KL closure, and generation-based extraction recovers 96%. Top-$K$ censoring therefore limits per-position distribution recovery but does not by itself prevent capability extraction, separating fidelity from transfer in prompt-only logit distillation.

Causal queries are often only partially identifiable from observational data, and experiments that could tighten the resulting bounds are typically costly. We study the problem of selecting, prior to observing experimental outcomes, a cost-constrained subset of experiments that maximally tightens bounds on a target query. We formalize this as the max-potency problem, where epistemic potency measures the worst-case reduction in bound width guaranteed by an experiment, and show that this problem is NP-hard via a reduction from 0-1 knapsack. Building on the polynomial-programming framework of Duarte et al. (2023), we give a general procedure for evaluating epistemic potency in discrete settings. To control the super-exponential search space, we introduce two graphical pruning criteria that depend only on the causal graph and the query: a novel path-interception rule that exploits district structure to certify zero potency in linear time, and an identifiability check based on the ID algorithm. On Erdos-Renyi random graphs and 11 bnlearn benchmark networks, the two criteria together prune 50-88% of candidate experiments on average without solving a single polynomial program. For the general subset search, we show that ID-pruned experiments are combinatorially inert, yielding a super-exponential reduction in the number of subsets evaluated. We close with an end-to-end demonstration on observational NHANES data, selecting optimal experiments for estimating the effect of physical activity on diabetes.

Causal inference from observational data can provide strong evidence for finding the best action in a decision-making scenario without having to perform expensive randomized trials. The causal effect of an action is often not pointwise identifiable even with infinite data due to unobserved confounding factors. Furthermore, having only finitely many samples adds another layer of uncertainty to causal effect estimation. Several existing methods can be used to obtain upper and lower bounds to the causal effect, ranging from symbolic methods to the more recent neural network-based approaches, which implicitly incorporate both sources of uncertainty. However, these methods do not inform whether collecting more samples may or may not help identify the best action from observational data, leaving experts in the dark about their data collection strategies. We address this problem with a novel framework that can distinguish the range of causal effect values that might be eliminated by collecting more samples from the range of values that, with high probability, cannot be eliminated with more observational samples. We show that this partitioning can be obtained by solving max-min and min-max optimization problems. We leverage neural causal models to approximately recover this decomposition in practice. We demonstrate via experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets that our algorithm can determine when collecting more samples will not help determine the best action. Our framework can help practitioners decide when to resort to non-observational studies or seek to measure some of the unmeasured confounders for optimal decision-making.