A scientist tests a continuous stream of hypotheses over time in the course of her investigation — she does not test a predetermined, fixed number of hypotheses. The scientist wishes to make as many discoveries as possible while ensuring the number of false discoveries is controlled — a well recognized way for accomplishing this is to control the false discovery rate (FDR). Prior methods for FDR control in the online setting have focused on formulating algorithms when specific dependency structures are assumed to exist between the test statistics of each hypothesis. However, in practice, these dependencies often cannot be known beforehand or tested after the fact. Our algorithm, e-LOND, provides FDR control under arbitrary, possibly unknown, dependence. We show that our method is more powerful than existing approaches to this problem through simulations. We also formulate extensions of this algorithm to utilize randomization for increased power and for constructing confidence intervals in online selective inference.

Discovery of causal relationships is a fundamental goal of science and vital for sound decision making. As such, there has been considerable interest in causal discovery methods with provable guarantees. Existing works have thus far largely focused on discovery under hard intervention and infinite-samples, in which intervening on a node readily reveals the orientation of every edge incident to the node. This setup however overlooks the stochasticity inherent in real-world, finite-sample settings. Our work takes a step towards studying finite-sample causal discovery, wherein multiple interventions on a node are now needed for edge orientation. In this work, we study the canonical setup in theoretical causal discovery literature, where one assumes causal sufficiency and access to the graph skeleton. Our key observation is that discovery may be viewed as structured, multiple testing, and we develop a novel testing framework to this end. Crucially, our framework allows for anytime valid testing as multiple tests are needed to conclude an edge orientation. It also allows for flexible combination of structured test-statistics (enabling one to use Meek rules to propagate edge orientation) as well as robust testing. Through empirical simulations, we confirm the usefulness of our framework. In closing, using this testing framework, we show how one may efficiently verify graph structure by drawing a connection to multi-constraint bandits and designing a novel algorithm to this end.

Rigorously establishing the safety of black-box machine learning models with respect to critical risk measures is important for providing guarantees about the behavior of the model. Recently, a notion of a risk controlling prediction set (RCPS) has been introduced by Bates et. al. (JACM '24) for producing prediction sets that are statistically guaranteed to have low risk from machine learning models. Our method extends this notion to the sequential setting, where we provide guarantees even when the data is collected adaptively, and ensures the risk guarantee is anytime-valid, i.e., simultaneously holds at all time steps. Further, we propose a framework for constructing RCPSes for active labeling, i.e., allowing one to use a labeling policy that chooses whether to query the true label for each received data point, and ensures the expected proportion data points whose labels are queried are below a predetermined label budget. We also describe how to use predictors (e.g., the machine learning model we are providing risk control guarantees for) to further improve the utility of our RCPSes by estimating the expected risk conditioned on the covariates. We characterize the optimal choices of label policy under a fixed label budget, and predictor, and show a regret result that relates the estimation error of the optimal labeling policy and predictor to the wealth process that underlies our RCPSes. Lastly, we present practical ways of formulating label policies and we empirically show that our label policies use fewer labels to reach higher utility than naive baseline labeling strategies on both simulations and real data.

We introduce the notion of risk-limiting financial audits (RLFA): procedures that manually evaluate a subset of $N$ financial transactions to check the validity of a claimed assertion $\mathcal{A}$ about the transactions. More specifically, RLFA satisfy two properties: (i) if $\mathcal{A}$ is false, they correctly disprove it with probability at least $1-\delta$, and (ii) they validate the correctness of $\mathcal{A}$ with probability $1$, if it is true. We propose a general RLFA strategy, by constructing new confidence sequences (CSs) for the weighted average of $N$ unknown values, based on samples drawn without replacement from a (randomized) weighted sampling scheme. Next, we develop methods to improve the quality of CSs by incorporating side information about the unknown values. We show that when the side information is sufficiently accurate, it can directly drive the sampling. For the case where the accuracy is unknown a priori, we introduce an alternative approach using control variates. Crucially, our construction adapts to the quality of side information by strongly leveraging the side information if it is highly predictive, and learning to ignore it if it is uninformative. Our methods also recover the state-of-the-art bounds for the special case of uniformly sampled observations with no side information, which has already found applications in election auditing. The harder weighted case with general side information solves the more challenging problem of AI-assisted financial auditing.

Online learning with expert advice is a fundamental problem of sequential prediction. In this problem, the algorithm has access to a set of n “experts” who make predictions on each day. The goal on each day is to process these predictions, and make a prediction with the minimum cost. After making a prediction, the algorithm sees the actual outcome on that day, updates its state, and then moves on to the next day. An algorithm is judged by how well it does compared to the best expert in the set.

In bandit multiple hypothesis testing, each arm corresponds to a different null hypothesis that we wish to test, and the goal is to design adaptive algorithms that correctly identify large set of interesting arms (true discoveries), while only mistakenly identifying a few uninteresting ones (false discoveries). One common metric in non-bandit multiple testing is the false discovery rate (FDR). We propose a unified, modular framework for bandit FDR control that emphasizes the decoupling of exploration and summarization of evidence. We utilize the powerful martingale-based concept of "e-processes" to ensure FDR control for arbitrary composite nulls, exploration rules and stopping times in generic problem settings. In particular, valid FDR control holds even if the reward distributions of the arms could be dependent, multiple arms may be queried simultaneously, and multiple (cooperating or competing) agents may be querying arms, covering combinatorial semi-bandit type settings as well. Prior work has considered in great detail the setting where each arm's reward distribution is independent and sub-Gaussian, and a single arm is queried at each step. Our framework recovers matching sample complexity guarantees in this special case, and performs comparably or better in practice. For other settings, sample complexities will depend on the finer details of the problem (composite nulls being tested, exploration algorithm, data dependence structure, stopping rule) and we do not explore these; our contribution is to show that the FDR guarantee is clean and entirely agnostic to these details.

We consider imbalanced classification, the problem in which a label may have low marginal probability relative to other labels, by weighting losses according to the correct class. First, we examine the convergence rates of the expected excess weighted risk of plug-in classifiers where the weighting for the plug-in classifier and the risk may be different. This leads to irreducible errors that do not converge to the weighted Bayes risk, which motivates our consideration of robust risks. We define a robust risk that minimizes risk over a set of weightings, show excess risk bounds for this problem, and demonstrate that particular choices of the weighting set leads to a special instance of conditional value at risk (CVaR) from stochastic programming, which we call label conditional value at risk (LCVaR). Additionally, we generalize this weighting to derive a new robust risk problem that we call label heterogeneous conditional value at risk (LHCVaR). Finally, we empirically demonstrate the efficacy of LCVaR and LHCVaR on improving class conditional risks.

We propose a set of generic conversational strategies to handle possible system breakdowns in non-task-oriented dialog systems.We also design policies to select these strategies according to dialog context.We combine expert knowledge and the statistical findings derived from data in designing these policies.The policy learned via reinforcement learning outperforms the random selection policy and the locally greedy policy in both simulated and real-world settings.In addition, we propose three metrics for conversation quality evaluation which consider both the local and global quality of the conversation.