Selection Bias

Post-click conversion rate (CVR) is a key metric in various scenarios including e-commerce and advertising, reflecting the efficiency and user experience in the second stage of the conversion process. Estimating the causal effect on CVR is therefore of great practical importance. However, directly applying existing causal inference methods to clicked samples introduces sample selection bias and increased variance due to the exclusion of non-click data. Recent studies on CVR prediction introduce "ideal loss", which optimizes model parameters using an unbiased estimate of the loss over the full sample. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that unbiasedness of the loss implies unbiasedness of the final estimator. We revisit this challenge from the perspective of semiparametric theory. Specifically, we develop a new doubly robust causal effect estimator for chain-structured outcomes such as CVR, and derive its theoretical properties in detail. It achieves a faster convergence rate compared to nuisance parameters estimation and is therefore more robust when using flexible nonparametric estimators, including neural networks. Based on these theoretical findings, we further design a framework based on targeted regularization to improve numerical stability and practical applicability. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world data demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our method. In addition, we find that naively combining loss debiasing with standard causal estimators underperforms our method, highlighting the necessity of developing the new estimator tailored to this CVR-style objective with solid theoretical guarantees.

Large language models used for clinical diagnostic reasoning are sensitive to sociolinguistic register, not just clinical content. We term this failure mode Narrative Anchoring: identical clinical facts expressed in different registers cause diagnostic outputs to diverge. Unlike prior demographic-bias work, which manipulates explicit identity tokens such as race or income, our benchmark isolates register as the sole channel of variation, with no demographic marker present in any form. We construct a dataset of 1,000 USMLE clinical vignettes, each rewritten into three sociolinguistically distinct personas under an independently audited fact-preservation guarantee, verified by a separate model that never sees the generation prompt. Across seven language models spanning three architecture families and scales, Narrative Anchoring is statistically significant under direct prompting in every model tested, with a Narrative Anchoring Gap of 0.064 to 0.151. Chain-of-thought reasoning and explicit debiasing instructions reduce the bias only partially, and their apparent gains are frequently confounded by accuracy collapse. We introduce NarrativeShield, a three-agent pipeline that structurally extracts and verifies clinical facts before diagnostic reasoning begins, reducing the Narrative Anchoring Gap to near-zero ($-0.004$ to $0.037$) and achieving the lowest rate of severely unstable decisions (DSS $<$ 0.8) of any method across all models, at a modest and mechanistically expected accuracy cost for most models. A stress test using a non-instruction-tuned base model shows that executing a debiasing intervention at all is gated by zero-shot instruction-following ability, not prompt content alone. We release our dataset, human-validated for fact preservation, as a standalone resource for studying register-based clinical bias.

Discovering the direct causes and effects of a target variable from observational data is a fundamental problem in causal discovery, with broad applications in domains such as gene regulatory analysis and biomedical research. Existing causal discovery methods either learn a global causal structure, which incurs substantial computational cost, or assume the absence of latent variables and selection bias, assumptions that are often violated in real-world settings. Motivated by these challenges, we study local causal structure learning in the presence of latent variables and selection bias. Specifically, we first characterize a local region that enables target-specific causal discovery without recovering the entire global structure. We then establish a theoretical bridge between causal information learned from the observed distribution induced on this local region and the corresponding information in the global causal structure. Building on these foundations, we propose LoCaLS, a local causal structure learning algorithm that is sound and complete under standard assumptions and identifies the same direct causes and effects of a target variable as those identifiable by global causal discovery methods, while allowing for latent variables and selection bias. Extensive experiments on random and real-world structures demonstrate that the proposed method consistently achieves higher structural accuracy than existing local methods while requiring substantially less computational effort than state-of-the-art global methods. Furthermore, applications to two real-world gene expression datasets reveal biologically plausible target-specific causal structures, demonstrating its practical applicability in large-scale biological data analysis.

We present K-ABENA (K-Adaptive Backpropagation with Error-based N-exclusion Algorithm), a selective gradient computation framework that reduces per-iteration training cost by excluding a fraction of low-loss ("minor") observations from the backward pass. Its canonical form (v3) combines a defensive-mixture sampling design over the minor set with Horvitz-Thompson inverse-probability reweighting, yielding a design-unbiased Horvitz-Thompson gradient estimator (Lemma 2) and whose self-normalized practical variant carries a bias of order O(1/m) with an explicit constant (Lemma 3). We prove an O(1/sqrt(T)) non-convex convergence guarantee for SGD under the estimator, with an additive term that quantifies the residual bias (Theorem 1). We further prove that uncompensated loss-based selection - a family that includes OHEM, SBP, and the two earlier K-ABENA variants - admits no stationary point at any minimizer where its selection bias is bounded away from zero (Proposition 2), and we quantify this failure empirically: at 0.17% class imbalance, uncompensated variants reach test AUC 0.53-0.62 versus 0.9998 for full-batch SGD, while the compensated estimator attains 0.9991 at identical 28.4% compute savings. On real datasets (Breast Cancer, Digits, Wine, Diabetes) the compensated estimator is statistically indistinguishable from full-batch SGD (paired permutation tests, p >= 0.5; Section 7) while saving 28-54% of per-epoch gradient computation. A biased "regularized mode" (the earlier half-domain variant) is retained as an option with a proven exact bias decomposition (Lemma 5) and quantified contraindications: it collapses to 0.386 accuracy under 40% label noise (baseline: 0.832) and to 0.53 AUC under extreme imbalance. Every advantage and every limitation reported in this paper is either proved or measured; all experiments are CPU-scale (NumPy/scikit-learn) and their scope is stated explicitly.

Training data for machine learning is routinely collected by a selection process the model never sees: loans are observed only when granted, outcomes only when a test was ordered. The standard fixes -- importance weighting, covariate-shift correction, MAR imputation -- assume selection is ignorable given observables. Econometrics solved the harder case in 1979: Heckman's two-equation model jointly fits a probit selection equation and an outcome equation linked through correlated errors, and the inverse-Mills-ratio term corrects for selection on unobservables, where importance weighting is structurally helpless. We instantiate this for deep epistemic uncertainty: a deep outcome network, a linear selection head, and a joint bivariate-normal likelihood over all units, ensembled for predictive variance. In a controlled generator where sampling probability depends on an unobservable correlated (rho up to 0.9) with the outcome noise, deep ensembles, MC dropout, and GP baselines are overconfident exactly where data was avoided: coverage of nominal-90% intervals falls to 64.4% at rho=0.9, and importance weighting with oracle propensities does not fix it (43.1%) -- reweighting corrects the covariate distribution, not the conditional bias E[y|x,selected] != E[y|x]. The Heckman correction restores coverage (88.9%) when the selection equation has an instrument -- a variable affecting selection but not the outcome -- and degrades measurably without one (40.3%); we chart this honesty curve rather than hide it. On real tabular data with induced MNAR selection, the corrected intervals are the best-calibrated (lowest region-ECE) non-oracle method in selected-against regions; baselines matching its raw coverage do so only by over-widening everywhere. Our estimators reproduce classic Stata output to seven digits. We state which identification regime a practitioner is in, and release the code.

Conditional inference trees (CIT) and conditional inference forests (CIF) reduce split-selection bias by testing features before choosing split thresholds, but repeated permutation tests and threshold searches can make these methods computationally expensive. We study CIT and CIF as top-$k$ feature-ranking methods for downstream prediction using real-data benchmarks, runtime ablations, and synthetic feature-recovery experiments. At a fixed node, if the features and permutation budget do not depend on the node responses, Bonferroni-corrected $+1$ Monte Carlo permutation $p$-values control nodewise rejection under the complete permutation null. CIF ranks 4th among 17 classification methods on 22 datasets and 3rd among 18 regression methods on 8 datasets. With Bonferroni correction held fixed, the CIF runtime ablations indicate that adaptive stopping and the number of thresholds searched have the largest measured effect on runtime: turning off adaptive stopping and using exact threshold search increase fitting time by 4.0--8.4$\times$ and 1.9--10.8$\times$, respectively, while downstream score changes are at most 0.011. Sparse high-$p$ simulations indicate that forest feature sampling can leave informative features out of many split decisions. Overall, the results support CIF as a top-$k$ feature-ranking method in the evaluated downstream prediction benchmarks.

We identify intervention bias as a previously unquantified failure mode of zero-shot large-language-model (LLM) educational advisory agents: without task-specific training, they recommend action when a hindsight-optimal oracle policy mandates inaction. In a six-arm ablation on the Open University Learning Analytics Dataset (N=800 students, four temporal cutoffs), at day 56 -- when the oracle designates 70.1% of students as needing no intervention -- zero-shot GPT-4o recommends action for 73%, a 43 percentage-point false-positive rate. Commercial RAG and SQL-augmented retrieval are comparably miscalibrated; at 10,000 students this implies about 4,300 unnecessary advisor contacts per cycle. Supervised policy learning eliminates this bias: a trajectory-conditioned ONNX Decision Transformer (DT) and a snapshot XGBoost classifier, trained on the same oracle-labelled trajectories under strict prefix-only features, both achieve near-zero calibration error. The DT reaches macro-F1 0.79 (macro-recall 0.85) across all five action classes, predicting even the rare load-reduction action without collapsing, at a 0% action flip rate and sub-5 ms CPU decision latency. The two supervised arms are on par; the DT's edge over XGBoost at the final cutoff is indicative only (unpaired across cohorts). Scope: we validate Stage-2 decision-making (EAV state vector to supervised policy) under controlled oracle input from structured OULAD data; high fidelity reflects feature-oracle alignment, not general high-stakes-AI capability. The most robust finding is the intervention-bias contrast, not the absolute accuracies. We also show an Evaluation Gap: LLM-as-judge scoring (DeepEval G-Eval) is blind to intervention bias, rewarding fluent over-prescription rather than decision quality.

Reject inference methods are widely used to mitigate survival bias in credit scoring, yet their effectiveness remains poorly understood. We systematically evaluate several such methods and uncover a structural failure mode: in a natural retraining cycle, models whose accuracy improves while recall collapses create an illusion of improvement that leads practitioners to believe the system is getting better when, in fact, its rejection quality -- the ability to correctly screen out defaulters -- is deteriorating. We then propose a controlled exploration strategy that breaks the feedback loop without statistical assumptions: the lender deliberately approves a fraction of rejected applicants and observes their true outcomes. We show that accuracy and rejection quality give opposite recommendations on whether to explore: accuracy favors no exploration, while rejection quality improves with it, confirming that standard evaluation metrics are misleading under selection bias. Even minimal exploration rates (2--5%) prove sufficient in our experiments to diagnose the severity of the feedback loop at near-zero cost. Our findings are consistent across two machine learning methods and three real-world datasets, and suggest that standard evaluation protocols are inadequate for assessing models trained under survival bias.

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.

Understanding how a prediction model will perform in a new environment before deployment is essential to preventing harm when algorithms inform decision-making. Two common sources of model performance degradation are (i) covariate shift, where the target covariate distribution differs from the source, and (ii) selective labels, where the observability of outcomes depends on historical decisions. We study pre-deployment model evaluation under the joint presence of covariate shift and labeling of outcomes selectively based on observed features. In particular, we present a double machine learning procedure for estimating the target risk of an arbitrary black-box prediction model under a general loss function. We show identification of this estimand under standard assumptions and derive a bias-corrected estimator based on the influence function of the target risk. Finally, we evaluate our estimator through experiments using the eICU electronic health records database, showing that it tracks the true target risk more accurately than methods that address either selective labels or covariate shift alone, as well as baselines that combine standard plug-in approaches.

The proliferation of recursive training on synthetic data can alleviate data scarcity but risks model collapse, where repeated training erodes distributional tails and homogenizes outputs. Data selection is widely viewed as a remedy, yet its reliability depends critically on the reference distribution used by the verifier. We show that in low-resource verification regimes, where each verifier observes only a small, fragmented, and biased slice of the target manifold, selection itself becomes biased. This situation naturally arises in low-resource data silos such as healthcare consortia or proprietary financial institutions, where raw data cannot be pooled and local references are inherently incomplete. As a result, selection preferentially retains samples aligned with the local manifold while pruning globally relevant tail modes, turning from a safeguard against collapse into a mechanism that precipitates it. We theoretically prove that such siloed selection accelerates collapse and induces power-law diversity decay. As an initial mitigation, we construct Wasserstein proxy references from multiple silos without sharing raw data. Empirical results confirm that local-reference selection fails on skewed distributions, whereas collaborative proxy references mitigate diversity degradation, suggesting that recursive synthetic-data pipelines require particular caution when real-data coverage is fragmented or scarce.

Decentralized Federated Learning(DFL) enables collaborative model training across wireless edge nodes, including IoT deployments, autonomous vehicles, UAV swarms, and satellite constellations. Operating over lossy wireless links under constraints, these systems cannot rely on retransmissions, so model parameters must be accepted as partial chunks, leading to two key failure modes, which are selection bias, where poor-quality links are systematically under-represented in gossip aggregation, and update staleness, where asynchronous nodes contribute outdated models. We prove that classical gossip aggregation introduces irreducible selection bias proportional to the link-loss rate. We propose DFL-AA (Decentralized Federated Learning with Adaptive AoI-weighted Aggregation), which corrects selection bias using Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) with online channel estimation and mitigates staleness via Age-of-Information (AoI) decay without requiring a global clock. We prove that DFL-AA removes link-quality distortion in expectation and consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across varying loss rates and heterogeneous channel conditions on fixed directed topologies.

Understanding potential selection in data is crucial for causal discovery; we argue that "selection" in common narratives takes two forms, which we term static and evolutionary selection, respectively. Static selection refers to a one-shot filtering process where observed data consist of a subset of the population of interest, as in survey volunteer bias. Evolutionary selection, in contrast, operates through repeated rounds of differential fitness in reproduction, where observed data constitute the latest generation shaped by a historical trajectory, as in immune adaptation, antibiotic resistance, and social norm emergence. Existing methods largely conflate these two forms and rely on an identical graphical model of selection. We show that this model is valid for static settings but fails to characterize data under evolution, yielding false discovery results. To address this, we introduce a new model that specifically characterizes evolutionary selection, and develop a sound and complete procedure for identifying such models from data across one or multiple environments or generations. Experimental results validate the method's ability to uncover the relevant mechanisms underlying evolution from data.

Selection bias is a common and often unavoidable aspect of real-world data that challenges the generalizability of machine learning models. When models trained on biased data are deployed in the broader target population, poor model generalization may lead to real harm, particularly in high-risk settings such as healthcare. This risk highlights the need for practitioners to reliably assess model generalizability prior to deployment. However, existing methods for predicting model performance rely on unrealistic access to the target distribution or knowledge of the selection mechanism causing bias. To address these limitations, we propose a novel upper bound on the worst-case model performance on the target population under the realistic setting where the selection mechanism and the target population data are only partially observed. We demonstrate the validity and practical utility of our method through experiments on fully synthetic data, semi-synthetic data derived from the All of Us Research Program, and real-world selection bias in MIMIC-IV. Our work offers a principled and practical tool to estimate the impact of selection bias in an otherwise intractable setting, thereby enabling practitioners to build safer and more generalizable models in healthcare and beyond.

Online experiments in ads, recommendation, and member-experience systems are often planned before the dominant interference mechanism is known. A treatment may propagate through budgets, inventory, producer exposure, graph spillovers, or temporal carryover, making the randomization design itself a statistical decision. We formulate this problem as robust design selection over uncertain exposure mechanisms. Given a finite catalog of six implementable designs, the selector compares each design by worst-case planning risk over an ambiguity set. The risk combines exposure bias, assignment-unit variance, minimum detectable effect, contamination or carryover, operational cost, and estimand mismatch. For theoretical justification, the paper develops a geometry-aware guarantee, stating that design bias is bounded by Wasserstein distance to the launch exposure distribution, and this penalty is minimax tight under Lipschitz exposure response. We also prove finite-catalog approximation and a robust selector theorem with excess-risk control, exact recovery under separation, and certified shortlists when the risk surface is flat. Empirically, the same selector gives different recommendations across samples from public datasets. It selects user-randomization on Criteo ads with dimensionless robust risk 1.295, switchbacks on Open Bandit-bts/men with risk 2.105, and cluster-randomization on KuaiRand with risk 2.240. The Open Bandit case stresses known but uneven logging support, with propensities from 0.00006 to 0.594 and a 5.17% IPS effective-sample share. Overall, the paper contributes an interference-aware experiment design framework based on mechanism-robust design decisions, where the output is either a justified design choice or an uncertainty shortlist.

Empirical claims about autonomous Kubernetes operations agents are largely unfalsifiable. Published work reports observational results without controlled comparisons against an agent-disabled baseline, selection bias is endemic, pre-registered decision matrices are absent, and samples are typically too small for the noise level of the underlying scoring system. The cause is the same gap that limits the agents themselves: code agents have a verification substrate that turns "did it work" into a fast, falsifiable, ground-truth signal, and operations has nothing equivalent. We present agent-breakage, a closed-loop measurement framework that injects faults into a target Kubernetes cluster, observes how an autonomous agent responds, scores the response on four axes against ground truth, and accumulates outcome-labeled (state, action, outcome) tuples. The framework distinguishes framework error from reasoning error, supports a true off-condition control via a deterministic-embedder mechanism, and enforces pre-registered decision matrices. We use it as a case study to test whether retrieval over past postmortems compounds an agent's capability. The methodological payload is three confounds the substrate caught during that case study, each of which would have produced a wrong published claim on a less instrumented version of the same work: a pgvector index bug, a +19% selection-bias artifact, and small-sample estimates that overstated effects by roughly 3x. The retrieval result itself is a partial falsification: 1 of 3 dense-corpus scenarios significant at p<0.05, pooled effect +3.9 percentage points, not significant at n=60. A within-scenario corpus-density sweep at 360 runs shows that mechanistic alignment of near-neighbors dominates raw count. The framework is released open source.

Recommender systems often rely on observational user--item interaction data, which is prone to selection bias due to users' selective interactions with items. Inverse propensity weighting and doubly robust estimators effectively mitigate selection bias under observed confounding, but are unreliable in the presence of hidden confounders. Existing approaches relying on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or global sensitivity bounds are constrained in practice: RCTs demand costly experimental data, while global sensitivity bounds presume a uniformly bounded effect of unmeasured confounders on propensities through sensitivity analysis, thereby neglecting heterogeneity across user--item interactions. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel framework, which estimates user--item level sensitivity bounds, thereby substantially relaxing the homogeneity assumption inherent in global sensitivity bounds named Personalized Unobserved-Confounding-aware Interaction Deconfounder (PUID). To ensure both robustness and predictive accuracy, we further develop an adversarial optimization strategy and propose a benchmark-guided variant (BPUID) that incorporates pre-trained models as stabilizing references. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms global methods under hidden confounding, without requiring RCT data.

Radiology report generation (RRG) aims to automatically produce clinically accurate textual reports from medical images. Existing methods predominantly rely on autoregressive (AR) language models, whose causal dependency structure restricts generation to a unidirectional left-to-right process. This paradigm can induce sequence bias, where models tend to follow stereotypical token orders and high-frequency report templates rather than fully grounding generation in image-specific evidence. In this paper, we propose AnchorDiff, the first masked-diffusion framework for RRG that integrates knowledge-graph-derived clinical anchors into diffusion language modeling. By leveraging bidirectional context and iterative refinement, AnchorDiff mitigates the limitations of fixed-order autoregressive decoding. Specifically, we introduce a topology-aware training strategy that uses RadGraph-derived entity hierarchies to assign clinically important tokens differentiated masking protection and loss weights. We further design an inference-time rewriting strategy that detects unstable committed tokens through perturbation-based testing and selectively revises them during denoising. Extensive experiments on the MIMIC-CXR and MIMIC-RG4 benchmarks demonstrate that AnchorDiff achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, showing the effectiveness of clinically anchored masked diffusion for radiology report generation.

Selection bias is pervasive in observational studies. For example, large scale biobanks data can exhibit ``healthy volunteer bias'' when respondents are healthier and of higher socio-economic status than the population they are meant to represent. Recovering causal effects from such sub-population is an important problem in causal inference, as estimating average treatment effects (ATE) from selected populations can result in a severely biased estimate of the ATE from the whole population. In this paper, we investigate the identifiability of the ATE under selection bias. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for ATE identifiability, leveraging weak assumptions on probability classes to characterize propensity score and selection probability. Compared to previous works, our results extend existing graphical identifiability criteria and offer a more comprehensive understanding of causal effect identification with strictly weaker conditions in the presence of selection bias.

[Abridged] Production LLM deployments receive feedback from a non-random fraction of users: thumbs sit mostly in the tails of the satisfaction distribution, and a naive average over them can land 40-50 percentage points away from true system quality. We treat this as a topic- and sentiment- stratified selection-bias problem and propose a three-agent hierarchical Bayesian pipeline that does not require ground-truth labels on individual interactions. A Topic Clustering Agent partitions the stream via UMAP + HDBSCAN over text embeddings; a Bias Modeling Agent fits a two-stage hierarchical Beta-Binomial under NUTS, inferring per-topic selection rates $s_c$ and quality $q_c$ with partial pooling; a Synthesis Agent reweights $q_c$ by true topic prevalence $\hatπ_c = n_c/N$ to report a bias-corrected aggregate posterior $\bar Q = \sum_c \hatπ_c q_c$ with credible interval, plus drift signals for online recalibration. Validation uses UltraFeedback (N=10,232 retained interactions, $C=18$ clusters, $Q^\star=0.6249$) with simulated topic- and sentiment-dependent selection biases. We compare five Bayesian variants against Naive and IPW baselines. A mild prior on the feedback channel (typical positive-feedback rate and negative-to-positive ratio, both readable from any production dashboard without labels) keeps Hierarchical-Informed within 4-13 pp of $Q^\star$ as the bias ratio sweeps from 1:1 to 30:1, with 95% credible intervals covering $Q^\star$ in 50/50 random-seed replicates at $κ_{\max}=10$. Without channel-side priors, every weak-prior variant misses $Q^\star$ by 22-33 pp: the per-cluster sufficient statistics admit a one-parameter family of equally good fits, and the prior on the bias channel (not on latent quality) is what breaks the degeneracy.

Behavioral curve modeling -- fitting parametric functions to engagement-versus-exposure data -- is standard practice in recommendation, advertising, and clinical dosing. We show that aggregation introduces a systematic distortion: Simpson's paradox in behavioral curves. On Goodreads (3.3M users, 9 genres), individual users peak at n* approximately 11 exposures while the aggregate peaks at n* approximately 34 -- a 3x gap driven by survival bias. Amazon Electronics (18M reviews) shows a 5.3x distortion. MovieLens-25M (D approximately 1) serves as a negative control, confirming that survival bias -- not aggregation per se -- is the operative mechanism. The distortion is robust to category granularity, engagement operationalization, and classifier calibration. We develop Synthetic Null Calibration to address a 32% false positive rate in per-user classification. Our findings apply wherever individual behavioral parameters are estimated from aggregate curves under differential attrition.

Bias audits of large language models now operate within governance frameworks such as the EU AI Act, making benchmark reliability a security concern in its own right. Many current benchmarks, however, collapse bias into a single scalar from one prompt format and one surface label. This design misses two failure modes that can be exploited without changing model weights. Across prompts, meaning-preserving format changes shift bias endorsement by more than $0.7$ on a fixed statement pool. Within a response, the discrete Selection and free-text Elaboration can take opposing stances, so an apparently clean aggregate may hide substantial internal inconsistency (a ``cancellation trap''). Selection-only and elaboration-only rankings are therefore nearly uncorrelated across eight LLMs (Spearman $ρ= 0.238$, $p = 0.570$): LLaMA3-70B ranks in the middle under selection-only scoring but highest under elaboration-only scoring on the same responses. We introduce \textsc{BiAxisAudit}, a protocol that reports each bias score together with a reliability estimate on two orthogonal axes. The across-prompt axis evaluates each statement under a factorial grid of task format, perspective, role, and sentiment, treating bias as a distribution rather than a point estimate. The within-response axis uses Split Coding to recover Selection and Elaboration as separate signals, measured by the Inconsistency Rate and Divergence Net Imbalance. Across eight LLMs with $80{,}200$ coded responses each, task format alone explains as much variance as model choice; $63.6\%$ of pooled bias signals (up to $85.2\%$ per model) appear in only one coding layer, and prompt-dimension interactions exceed main effects. The instrument also separates real bias reductions from apparent reductions caused by cross-layer redistribution: some prompt configurations reduce both BER and IR, whereas others suppress only selection-layer bias.

Protein sequence data from nature exhibits survivorship bias: we only observe data from those organisms that survive and reproduce, while non-functional protein mutations are eliminated by natural selection. Thus, predicting whether a protein sequence is functional often requires learning from positive examples alone. While positive-unlabeled (PU) learning frameworks offer a generic solution to this problem, existing PU methods ignore the evolutionary processes that shape sequence observability and cause survivorship bias. Consider a sequence that is one mutation away from a commonly-observed protein variant in a well-surveilled organism. If the sequence were functional, it would likely be observed. If it is not observed, this suggests non-functionality. In contrast, sequences that are unlikely to arise through mutation may be missing simply because they never arose. Thus, these two kinds of missing sequences should be treated differently when training models. In this work, we propose Evo-PU, a PU learning framework that uses a scientific understanding of nucleotide mutation to model survivorship bias for well-surveilled single-organism sequence data. On three prediction tasks using single-organism uniform-coverage surveillance data -- predicting results from held-out influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) mutagenesis studies, and predicting future SARS-CoV-2 variants -- Evo-PU outperforms standard PU learning, one-class classification (OCC), and protein language models (PLMs). On prediction tasks from multi-organism ProteinGym datasets with more heterogeneous surveillance coverage, we identify opportunities to generalize our approach.

Knowledge Tracing (KT) is fundamental to intelligent education systems, yet relies on educational logs that are selectively observed. The non-random nature of exercise recommendations and student choices inevitably induces severe selection bias. Most existing KT methods neglect this issue, training on observed logs using standard empirical risk, which yields biased mastery estimates and accumulates errors in subsequent recommendations. To address this, we introduce a doubly robust (DR) formulation for KT that integrates a propensity model with an error imputation model, theoretically guaranteeing unbiasedness if either model is accurate. Beyond unbiasedness, in the sequential setting of KT, we identify that the estimator's performance is compromised by variance-dependent stochastic deviations that accumulate over time, thereby causing training instability and limiting performance. To mitigate this, we derive a generalization bound that explicitly characterizes the impact of estimator variance and identifies temporal smoothness as a key factor in controlling it. Building on these theoretical insights, we propose the Temporal Smoothness Doubly Robust (TSDR) framework. TSDR jointly optimizes the KT predictor and the imputation model with a smoothness regularizer, effectively reducing variance while preserving the unbiasedness guarantee of DR. Experiments on multiple real-world benchmarks demonstrate that TSDR consistently enhances various state-of-the-art KT backbones, underscoring the vital role of principled bias correction in KT.

Estimating causal effects from observational data has become increasingly critical in diverse fields including healthcare, economics, and social policy. The fundamental challenge in causal inference arises from the missing counterfactuals and the selection bias. Existing methods are largely limited to point estimates and lack the capacity for distribution modeling. In this work, we propose RepFlow, a novel framework that formulates causal effect estimation as a joint optimization problem integrating representation learning with Conditional Flow Matching (CFM). RepFlow mitigates selection bias by minimizing the entropically regularized Wasserstein distance between treated and control representations. To enhance numerical stability, we further introduce an $L_2$ normalization constraint on latent representations. This balanced representation enables the flow model to accurately capture the distribution of potential outcomes. Extensive experiments across a wide range of benchmarks demonstrate that RepFlow consistently outperforms existing methods in both point and distributional causal effect estimation.

Selection bias arises when the probability that an observation enters a dataset depends on variables related to the quantities of interest, leading to systematic distortions in estimation and uncertainty quantification. For example, in epidemiological or survey settings, individuals with certain outcomes may be more likely to be included, resulting in biased prevalence estimates with potentially substantial downstream impact. Classical corrections, such as inverse-probability weighting or explicit likelihood-based models of the selection process, rely on tractable likelihoods, which limits their applicability in complex stochastic models with latent dynamics or high-dimensional structure. Simulation-based inference enables Bayesian analysis without tractable likelihoods but typically assumes missingness at random and thus fails when selection depends on unobserved outcomes or covariates. Here, we develop a bias-aware simulation-based inference framework that explicitly incorporates selection into neural posterior estimation. By embedding the selection mechanism directly into the generative simulator, the approach enables amortized Bayesian inference without requiring tractable likelihoods. This recasting of selection bias as part of the simulation process allows us to both obtain debiased estimates and explicitly test for the presence of bias. The framework integrates diagnostics to detect discrepancies between simulated and observed data and to assess posterior calibration. The method recovers well-calibrated posterior distributions across three statistical applications with diverse selection mechanisms, including settings in which likelihood-based approaches yield biased estimates. These results recast the correction of selection bias as a simulation problem and establish simulation-based inference as a practical and testable strategy for parameter estimation under selection bias.

The empirical risk minimization approach to data-driven decision making requires access to training data drawn under the same conditions as those that will be faced when the decision rule is deployed. However, in a number of settings, we may be concerned that our training sample is biased in the sense that some groups (characterized by either observable or unobservable attributes) may be under- or over-represented relative to the general population; and in this setting empirical risk minimization over the training set may fail to yield rules that perform well at deployment. We propose a model of sampling bias called conditional $Γ$-biased sampling, where observed covariates can affect the probability of sample selection arbitrarily much but the amount of unexplained variation in the probability of sample selection is bounded by a constant factor. Applying the distributionally robust optimization framework, we propose a method for learning a decision rule that minimizes the worst-case risk incurred under a family of test distributions that can generate the training distribution under $Γ$-biased sampling. We apply a result of Rockafellar and Uryasev to show that this problem is equivalent to an augmented convex risk minimization problem. We give statistical guarantees for learning a model that is robust to sampling bias via the method of sieves, and propose a deep learning algorithm whose loss function captures our robust learning target. We empirically validate our proposed method in a case study on prediction of mental health scores from health survey data and a case study on ICU length of stay prediction.

We revisit the problem of estimating $k$ linear regressors with self-selection bias in $d$ dimensions with the maximum selection criterion, as introduced by Cherapanamjeri, Daskalakis, Ilyas, and Zampetakis [CDIZ23, STOC'23]. Our main result is a $\mathrm{poly}(d, k, 1/\varepsilon) + (k \log k)^{O(k)}$ time algorithm for this problem that improves upon the running time of the algorithms by Cherapanamjeri, Daskalakis, Ilyas, and Zampetakis [CDIZ23] and Gaitonde and Mossel [GM24, arXiv]. We achieve this by providing the first local convergence algorithm for self-selection, thus resolving one of the main open questions of Cherapanamjeri, Daskalakis, Ilyas, and Zampetakis [CDIZ23]. To obtain this algorithm, we reduce self-selection to a seemingly unrelated statistical problem called estimation under coarsening [FKKT21, COLT'21]. Coarsening occurs when one does not observe the exact value of the sample but only some set (from a partition of the sample space) containing the exact value. Inference from coarse samples arises in various real-world applications, including rounding by humans and algorithms, limited precision of instruments, and lag in multi-agent systems. The coarse estimation problem arising in our reduction is induced by a non-convex partition, whereas previous works on coarsening exclusively studied convex partitions. The resulting estimation algorithm relies on the geometry of the self-selection problem to bypass non-convexity. This geometric approach, in turn, enables us to overcome the limitations of previous analytic approaches and could have applications for designing efficient algorithms for other latent-variable problems.