QuadraSHAP: Stable and Scalable Shapley Values for Product Games via Gauss-Legendre Quadrature

We study the efficient computation of Shapley values for \emph{product games} -- cooperative games in which the coalition value factorizes as a product of per-player terms. Such games arise in machine learning explainability whenever the value function inherits a multiplicative structure from the underlying model, as in kernel methods with product kernels and tree-based models. Our key result is that the Shapley value of each player in a product game admits an exact one-dimensional integral representation: the weighted sum over exponentially many feature coalitions collapses to the integral of a degree-$(d-1)$ polynomial over $[0,1]$, where $d$ is the total number of features. This yields a Gauss--Legendre quadrature scheme that is \emph{provably exact} whenever the number of nodes satisfies $m_q \geq \lceil d/2 \rceil$, and otherwise provides a \emph{near-exact} approximation with error provably decaying geometrically in $m_q$. In practice, a few hundred nodes can achieve highly precise estimates even with thousands of features. Building on this formulation, we derive a numerically stable implementation via log-space evaluation, together with an efficient parallel implementation based on associative scan primitives that achieves $O(d\,m_q)$ total work and $O(\log d)$ parallel time. Experiments show that \textsc{QuadraSHAP} is the fastest numerically stable method across all tested configurations.

Measuring Differences between Conditional Distributions using Kernel Embeddings

Comparing conditional distributions is a fundamental challenge in statistics and machine learning, with applications across a wide range of domains. While proposed methods for measuring discrepancies using kernel embeddings of distributions in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) provide powerful non-parametric techniques, the existing literature remains fragmented and lacks a unified theoretical treatment. This paper addresses this gap by establishing a coherent framework for studying kernel-based methods to measure divergence between conditional distributions through what we refer to as conditional maximum mean discrepancy (CMMD). The CMMD consists of a family of metrics which we call levels, with three special cases each using a different type of RKHS embedding: CMMD$_0$ (conditional mean operators), CMMD$_1$ (conditional mean embeddings), and CMMD$_2$ (joint mean embeddings). We additionally introduce a general level $s$ CMMD, clarifying the required assumptions, and establishing mathematical connections between the levels through the lens of operator-based smoothing. In addition to reviewing previously proposed estimators, we introduce a novel doubly robust estimator for the CMMD that maintains consistency provided at least one of the underlying models is correctly specified. We provide numerical experiments demonstrating that the CMMD effectively captures complex conditional dependencies for statistical testing.

Quantification of Credal Uncertainty: A Distance-Based Approach

Credal sets, i.e., closed convex sets of probability measures, provide a natural framework to represent aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning. Yet how to quantify these two types of uncertainty for a given credal set, particularly in multiclass classification, remains underexplored. In this paper, we propose a distance-based approach to quantify total, aleatoric, and epistemic uncertainty for credal sets. Concretely, we introduce a family of such measures within the framework of Integral Probability Metrics (IPMs). The resulting quantities admit clear semantic interpretations, satisfy natural theoretical desiderata, and remain computationally tractable for common choices of IPMs. We instantiate the framework with the total variation distance and obtain simple, efficient uncertainty measures for multiclass classification. In the binary case, this choice recovers established uncertainty measures, for which a principled multiclass generalization has so far been missing. Empirical results confirm practical usefulness, with favorable performance at low computational cost.

Verbalizing LLM's Higher-order Uncertainty via Imprecise Probabilities

Despite the growing demand for eliciting uncertainty from large language models (LLMs), empirical evidence suggests that LLM behavior is not always adequately captured by the elicitation techniques developed under the classical probabilistic uncertainty framework. This mismatch leads to systematic failure modes, particularly in settings that involve ambiguous question-answering, in-context learning, and self-reflection. To address this, we propose novel prompt-based uncertainty elicitation techniques grounded in \emph{imprecise probabilities}, a principled framework for repesenting and eliciting higher-order uncertainty. Here, first-order uncertainty captures uncertainty over possible responses to a prompt, while second-order uncertainty (uncertainty about uncertainty) quantifies indeterminacy in the underlying probability model itself. We introduce general-purpose prompting and post-processing procedures to directly elicit and quantify both orders of uncertainty, and demonstrate their effectiveness across diverse settings. Our approach enables more faithful uncertainty reporting from LLMs, improving credibility and supporting downstream decision-making.

Incentive Aware AI Regulations: A Credal Characterisation

While high-stakes ML applications demand strict regulations, strategic ML providers often evade them to lower development costs. To address this challenge, we cast AI regulation as a mechanism design problem under uncertainty and introduce regulation mechanisms: a framework that maps empirical evidence from models to a license for some market share. The providers can select from a set of licenses, effectively forcing them to bet on their model's ability to fulfil regulation. We aim at regulation mechanisms that achieve perfect market outcome, i.e. (a) drive non-compliant providers to self-exclude, and (b) ensure participation from compliant providers. We prove that a mechanism has perfect market outcome if and only if the set of non-compliant distributions forms a credal set, i.e., a closed, convex set of probability measures. This result connects mechanism design and imprecise probability by establishing a duality between regulation mechanisms and the set of non-compliant distributions. We also demonstrate these mechanisms in practice via experiments on regulating use of spurious features for prediction and fairness. Our framework provides new insights at the intersection of mechanism design and imprecise probability, offering a foundation for development of enforceable AI regulations.

Instrumental and Proximal Causal Inference with Gaussian Processes

Instrumental variable (IV) and proximal causal learning (Proxy) methods are central frameworks for causal inference in the presence of unobserved confounding. Despite substantial methodological advances, existing approaches rarely provide reliable epistemic uncertainty (EU) quantification. We address this gap through a Deconditional Gaussian Process (DGP) framework for uncertainty-aware causal learning. Our formulation recovers popular kernel estimators as the posterior mean, ensuring predictive precision, while the posterior variance yields principled and well-calibrated EU. Moreover, the probabilistic structure enables systematic model selection via marginal log-likelihood optimization. Empirical results demonstrate strong predictive performance alongside informative EU quantification, evaluated via empirical coverage frequencies and decision-aware accuracy rejection curves. Together, our approach provides a unified, practical solution for causal inference under unobserved confounding with reliable uncertainty.

Set-based v.s. Distribution-based Representations of Epistemic Uncertainty: A Comparative Study

Epistemic uncertainty in neural networks is commonly modeled using two second-order paradigms: distribution-based representations, which rely on posterior parameter distributions, and set-based representations based on credal sets (convex sets of probability distributions). These frameworks are often regarded as fundamentally non-comparable due to differing semantics, assumptions, and evaluation practices, leaving their relative merits unclear. Empirical comparisons are further confounded by variations in the underlying predictive models. To clarify this issue, we present a controlled comparative study enabling principled, like-for-like evaluation of the two paradigms. Both representations are constructed from the same finite collection of predictive distributions generated by a shared neural network, isolating representational effects from predictive accuracy. Our study evaluates each representation through the lens of 3 uncertainty measures across 8 benchmarks, including selective prediction and out-of-distribution detection, spanning 6 underlying predictive models and 10 independent runs per configuration. Our results show that meaningful comparison between these seemingly non-comparable frameworks is both feasible and informative, providing insights into how second-order representation choices impact practical uncertainty-aware performance.

Robust Predictive Uncertainty and Double Descent in Contaminated Bayesian Random Features

We propose a robust Bayesian formulation of random feature (RF) regression that accounts explicitly for prior and likelihood misspecification via Huber-style contamination sets. Starting from the classical equivalence between ridge-regularized RF training and Bayesian inference with Gaussian priors and likelihoods, we replace the single prior and likelihood with $ε$- and $η$-contaminated credal sets, respectively, and perform inference using pessimistic generalized Bayesian updating. We derive explicit and tractable bounds for the resulting lower and upper posterior predictive densities. These bounds show that, when contamination is moderate, prior and likelihood ambiguity effectively acts as a direct contamination of the posterior predictive distribution, yielding uncertainty envelopes around the classical Gaussian predictive. We introduce an Imprecise Highest Density Region (IHDR) for robust predictive uncertainty quantification and show that it admits an efficient outer approximation via an adjusted Gaussian credible interval. We further obtain predictive variance bounds (under a mild truncation approximation for the upper bound) and prove that they preserve the leading-order proportional-growth asymptotics known for RF models. Together, these results establish a robustness theory for Bayesian random features: predictive uncertainty remains computationally tractable, inherits the classical double-descent phase structure, and is improved by explicit worst-case guarantees under bounded prior and likelihood misspecification.

Learning Credal Ensembles via Distributionally Robust Optimization

Credal predictors are models that are aware of epistemic uncertainty and produce a convex set of probabilistic predictions. They offer a principled way to quantify predictive epistemic uncertainty (EU) and have been shown to improve model robustness in various settings. However, most state-of-the-art methods mainly define EU as disagreement caused by random training initializations, which mostly reflects sensitivity to optimization randomness rather than uncertainty from deeper sources. To address this, we define EU as disagreement among models trained with varying relaxations of the i.i.d. assumption between training and test data. Based on this idea, we propose CreDRO, which learns an ensemble of plausible models through distributionally robust optimization. As a result, CreDRO captures EU not only from training randomness but also from meaningful disagreement due to potential distribution shifts between training and test data. Empirical results show that CreDRO consistently outperforms existing credal methods on tasks such as out-of-distribution detection across multiple benchmarks and selective classification in medical applications.

Quantifying Epistemic Predictive Uncertainty in Conformal Prediction

We study the problem of quantifying epistemic predictive uncertainty (EPU) -- that is, uncertainty faced at prediction time due to the existence of multiple plausible predictive models -- within the framework of conformal prediction (CP). To expose the implicit model multiplicity underlying CP, we build on recent results showing that, under a mild assumption, any full CP procedure induces a set of closed and convex predictive distributions, commonly referred to as a credal set. Importantly, the conformal prediction region (CPR) coincides exactly with the set of labels to which all distributions in the induced credal set assign probability at least $1-α$. As our first contribution, we prove that this characterisation also holds in split CP. Building on this connection, we then propose a computationally efficient and analytically tractable uncertainty measure, based on \emph{Maximum Mean Imprecision}, to quantify the EPU by measuring the degree of conflicting information within the induced credal set. Experiments on active learning and selective classification demonstrate that the quantified EPU provides substantially more informative and fine-grained uncertainty assessments than reliance on CPR size alone. More broadly, this work highlights the potential of CP serving as a principled basis for decision-making under epistemic uncertainty.