GenCAR is proposed, which couples preference-grounded counterfactual supervision with calibrated set selection with calibrated set selection, and theoretically bound conditional counterfactual approximation error and prove finite-sample, distribution-free control of proxy-label FDR under exchangeability and positive regression dependence.
Abstract
Serving useful recommendations under distribution shift is crucial for balancing utility and risk in out-of-distribution (OOD) recommendation. However, most existing OOD methods improve ranking or construct counterfactual candidates without controlling the proxy-label false discovery rate (FDR) of the served set. In this work, we formulate OOD serving as the $\alpha$-Valid Counterfactual Recommendation ($\alpha$-VCR) problem to retain candidate support learned from counterfactual supervision while controlling proxy-label FDR, and propose GenCAR, which couples preference-grounded counterfactual supervision with calibrated set selection. In particular, GenCAR fixes the stable-preference representation while intervening on the environmental factor, grounds offline large language model proposals through preference anchors and trust-radius filtering, and uses conformal $p$-values for Benjamini--Hochberg selection. We theoretically bound conditional counterfactual approximation error and prove finite-sample, distribution-free control of proxy-label FDR under exchangeability and positive regression dependence, with a Benjamini--Yekutieli guarantee under arbitrary dependence. Extensive experiments audit realized proxy false discovery proportions and demonstrate that GenCAR consistently enhances OOD candidate recovery across diverse benchmarks.
We study partial-revelation panel forecasting: given $k$ of $n$ annotator votes on the previous dialogue turn, predict the full count distribution of the next turn's panel. This cross-turn predictive information differs from same-item annotation value. Under any nested revelation mechanism, the population decrement sat...
Bin Wen, Dai-Qiao Zhang, Tien-Ping Tan· 0 citations
Generative search systems rank products and services for consequential decisions, and publishers can cheaply make candidate text look relevant. Yet evidence status is not a text property but a claim-evidence relation: text-only rankers and defenses cannot separate honest detailed content from fabricated detail, creatin...
Yi-Han Xia, Hui-Ling Fan, Kang-Rong Zhong et al.· 0 citations
Sampling-based test-time scaling enhances LLM reasoning by aggregating multiple reasoning paths for the same query. Existing methods use answer frequencies or path confidence to compute candidate scores, which do not explicitly characterize comparisons between competing answers. Inspired by the Condorcet principle in s...
Cong Hua, Qian-Qian Xu, Zi-Tai Wang et al.· 0 citations
TRACE (Targeted Ranking-Aware Counterfactual Explanation), which decomposes the search into three stages under an embedding-accessible, training-free setting: influence-guided position selection, plausibility-aware candidate retrieval, and actual-margin beam pruning.
Ungsik Kim, Sang-Min Choi, Gun-Woo Kim et al.· Proceedings of the 20th ACM...· 1 citation
Sequential recommender systems rely on users’ previous interactions to predict what they may prefer next. Although recent models can capture complex patterns in interaction histories, understanding which past interactions actually contribute to a recommendation remains difficult, particularly when the models use differ...
Drashti Shrimal, Harshali Patil· Journal of Intelligent Decis...· 0 citations
Learning-to-rank (LTR) models can align rankings with undesignated signals when those signals appear as features or leak into training labels. We compare label-free genetic multi-criteria sorting (open Pikaia strategy variants), which reranks fixed candidate pools using an explicit criteria vector C, to label-trained L...
Vladyslav Shevchuk, Carlos Uziel Pérez Malla, Philipp Wissgott· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 23, 2026
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.