Bayesian Optimization for Building Social-Influence-Free Consensus

We introduce Social Bayesian Optimization (SBO), a vote-efficient algorithm for consensus-building in collective decision-making. In contrast to single-agent scenarios, collective decision-making encompasses group dynamics that may distort agents' preference feedback, thereby impeding their capacity to achieve a social-influence-free consensus -- the most preferable decision based on the aggregated agent utilities. We demonstrate that under mild rationality axioms, reaching social-influence-free consensus using noisy feedback alone is impossible. To address this, SBO employs a dual voting system: cheap but noisy public votes (e.g., show of hands in a meeting), and more accurate, though expensive, private votes (e.g., one-to-one interview). We model social influence using an unknown social graph and leverage the dual voting system to efficiently learn this graph. Our theoretical findigns show that social graph estimation converges faster than the black-box estimation of agents' utilities, allowing us to reduce reliance on costly private votes early in the process. This enables efficient consensus-building primarily through noisy public votes, which are debiased based on the estimated social graph to infer social-influence-free feedback. We validate the efficacy of SBO across multiple real-world applications, including thermal comfort, team building, travel negotiation, and energy trading collaboration.

Strategic Learning with Local Explanations as Feedback

We investigate algorithmic decision problems where agents can respond strategically to the decision maker's (DM) models. The demand for clear and actionable explanations from DMs to (potentially strategic) agents continues to rise. While prior work often treats explanations as full model disclosures, explanations in practice might convey only partial information, which can lead to misinterpretations and harmful responses. When full disclosure of the predictive model is neither feasible nor desirable, a key open question is how DMs can use explanations to maximise their utility without compromising agent welfare. In this work, we explore well-known local and global explanation methods, and establish a necessary condition to prevent explanations from misleading agents into self-harming actions. Moreover, with conditional homogeneity, we establish that action recommendation (AR)-based explanations are sufficient for non-harmful responses, akin to the revelation principle in information design. To operationalise AR-based explanations, we propose a simple algorithm to jointly optimise the predictive model and AR policy to balance DM outcomes with agent welfare. Our empirical results demonstrate the benefits of this approach as a more refined strategy for safe and effective partial model disclosure in algorithmic decision-making.

Credal Two-Sample Tests of Epistemic Ignorance

We introduce credal two-sample testing, a new hypothesis testing framework for comparing credal sets -- convex sets of probability measures where each element captures aleatoric uncertainty and the set itself represents epistemic uncertainty that arises from the modeller's partial ignorance. Classical two-sample tests, which rely on comparing precise distributions, fail to address epistemic uncertainty due to partial ignorance. To bridge this gap, we generalise two-sample tests to compare credal sets, enabling reasoning for equality, inclusion, intersection, and mutual exclusivity, each offering unique insights into the modeller's epistemic beliefs. We formalise these tests as two-sample tests with nuisance parameters and introduce the first permutation-based solution for this class of problems, significantly improving upon existing methods. Our approach properly incorporates the modeller's epistemic uncertainty into hypothesis testing, leading to more robust and credible conclusions, with kernel-based implementations for real-world applications.

Domain Generalisation via Imprecise Learning

Out-of-distribution (OOD) generalisation is challenging because it involves not only learning from empirical data, but also deciding among various notions of generalisation, e.g., optimising the average-case risk, worst-case risk, or interpolations thereof. While this choice should in principle be made by the model operator like medical doctors, this information might not always be available at training time. The institutional separation between machine learners and model operators leads to arbitrary commitments to specific generalisation strategies by machine learners due to these deployment uncertainties. We introduce the Imprecise Domain Generalisation framework to mitigate this, featuring an imprecise risk optimisation that allows learners to stay imprecise by optimising against a continuous spectrum of generalisation strategies during training, and a model framework that allows operators to specify their generalisation preference at deployment. Supported by both theoretical and empirical evidence, our work showcases the benefits of integrating imprecision into domain generalisation.

Looping in the Human: Collaborative and Explainable Bayesian Optimization

Like many optimizers, Bayesian optimization often falls short of gaining user trust due to opacity. While attempts have been made to develop human-centric optimizers, they typically assume user knowledge is well-specified and error-free, employing users mainly as supervisors of the optimization process. We relax these assumptions and propose a more balanced human-AI partnership with our Collaborative and Explainable Bayesian Optimization (CoExBO) framework. Instead of explicitly requiring a user to provide a knowledge model, CoExBO employs preference learning to seamlessly integrate human insights into the optimization, resulting in algorithmic suggestions that resonate with user preference. CoExBO explains its candidate selection every iteration to foster trust, empowering users with a clearer grasp of the optimization. Furthermore, CoExBO offers a no-harm guarantee, allowing users to make mistakes; even with extreme adversarial interventions, the algorithm converges asymptotically to a vanilla Bayesian optimization. We validate CoExBO's efficacy through human-AI teaming experiments in lithium-ion battery design, highlighting substantial improvements over conventional methods.

Causal Strategic Learning with Competitive Selection

We study the problem of agent selection in causal strategic learning under multiple decision makers and address two key challenges that come with it. Firstly, while much of prior work focuses on studying a fixed pool of agents that remains static regardless of their evaluations, we consider the impact of selection procedure by which agents are not only evaluated, but also selected. When each decision maker unilaterally selects agents by maximising their own utility, we show that the optimal selection rule is a trade-off between selecting the best agents and providing incentives to maximise the agents' improvement. Furthermore, this optimal selection rule relies on incorrect predictions of agents' outcomes. Hence, we study the conditions under which a decision maker's optimal selection rule will not lead to deterioration of agents' outcome nor cause unjust reduction in agents' selection chance. To that end, we provide an analytical form of the optimal selection rule and a mechanism to retrieve the causal parameters from observational data, under certain assumptions on agents' behaviour. Secondly, when there are multiple decision makers, the interference between selection rules introduces another source of biases in estimating the underlying causal parameters. To address this problem, we provide a cooperative protocol which all decision makers must collectively adopt to recover the true causal parameters. Lastly, we complement our theoretical results with simulation studies. Our results highlight not only the importance of causal modeling as a strategy to mitigate the effect of gaming, as suggested by previous work, but also the need of a benevolent regulator to enable it.

Explaining the Uncertain: Stochastic Shapley Values for Gaussian Process Models

We present a novel approach for explaining Gaussian processes (GPs) that can utilize the full analytical covariance structure present in GPs. Our method is based on the popular solution concept of Shapley values extended to stochastic cooperative games, resulting in explanations that are random variables. The GP explanations generated using our approach satisfy similar favorable axioms to standard Shapley values and possess a tractable covariance function across features and data observations. This covariance allows for quantifying explanation uncertainties and studying the statistical dependencies between explanations. We further extend our framework to the problem of predictive explanation, and propose a Shapley prior over the explanation function to predict Shapley values for new data based on previously computed ones. Our extensive illustrations demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Explaining Preferences with Shapley Values

While preference modelling is becoming one of the pillars of machine learning, the problem of preference explanation remains challenging and underexplored. In this paper, we propose \textsc{Pref-SHAP}, a Shapley value-based model explanation framework for pairwise comparison data. We derive the appropriate value functions for preference models and further extend the framework to model and explain \emph{context specific} information, such as the surface type in a tennis game. To demonstrate the utility of \textsc{Pref-SHAP}, we apply our method to a variety of synthetic and real-world datasets and show that richer and more insightful explanations can be obtained over the baseline.

RKHS-SHAP: Shapley Values for Kernel Methods

Feature attribution for kernel methods is often heuristic and not individualised for each prediction. To address this, we turn to the concept of Shapley values, a coalition game theoretical framework that has previously been applied to different machine learning model interpretation tasks, such as linear models, tree ensembles and deep networks. By analysing Shapley values from a functional perspective, we propose \textsc{RKHS-SHAP}, an attribution method for kernel machines that can efficiently compute both \emph{Interventional} and \emph{Observational Shapley values} using kernel mean embeddings of distributions. We show theoretically that our method is robust with respect to local perturbations - a key yet often overlooked desideratum for interpretability. Further, we propose \emph{Shapley regulariser}, applicable to a general empirical risk minimisation framework, allowing learning while controlling the level of specific feature's contributions to the model. We demonstrate that the Shapley regulariser enables learning which is robust to covariate shift of a given feature and fair learning which controls the Shapley values of sensitive features.

BayesIMP: Uncertainty Quantification for Causal Data Fusion

While causal models are becoming one of the mainstays of machine learning, the problem of uncertainty quantification in causal inference remains challenging. In this paper, we study the causal data fusion problem, where datasets pertaining to multiple causal graphs are combined to estimate the average treatment effect of a target variable. As data arises from multiple sources and can vary in quality and quantity, principled uncertainty quantification becomes essential. To that end, we introduce Bayesian Interventional Mean Processes, a framework which combines ideas from probabilistic integration and kernel mean embeddings to represent interventional distributions in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space, while taking into account the uncertainty within each causal graph. To demonstrate the utility of our uncertainty estimation, we apply our method to the Causal Bayesian Optimisation task and show improvements over state-of-the-art methods.