Shapley values are widely recognized as a principled method for attributing importance to input features in machine learning. However, the exact computation of Shapley values scales exponentially with the number of features, severely limiting the practical application of this powerful approach. The challenge is further compounded when the predictive model is probabilistic---as in Gaussian processes (GPs)---where the outputs are random variables rather than point estimates, necessitating additional computational effort in modeling higher-order moments. In this work, we demonstrate that for an important class of GPs known as FANOVA GP, which explicitly models all main effects and interactions, exact Shapley attributions for both local and global explanations can be computed in *quadratic* time. For *local, instance-wise explanations*, we define a stochastic cooperative game over function components and compute the *exact stochastic Shapley value* in quadratic time only, capturing both the expected contribution and uncertainty. For *global explanations*, we introduce a deterministic, variance-based value function and compute exact Shapley values that quantify each feature’s contribution to the model’s overall sensitivity. Our methods leverage a closed-form (stochastic) Möbiusrepresentation of the FANOVA decomposition and introduce recursive algorithms, inspired by Newton's identities, to efficiently compute the mean and variance of Shapley values. Our work enhances the utility of explainable AI, as demonstrated by empirical studies, by providing more scalable, axiomatically sound, and uncertainty-aware explanations for predictions generated by structured probabilistic models.

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. Compared to classical two-sample tests, which focus on comparing precise distributions, the proposed framework provides a broader and more versatile set of hypotheses. This approach enables the direct integration of epistemic uncertainty, effectively addressing the challenges arising from partial ignorance in hypothesis testing. By generalising two-sample test to compare credal sets, our framework enables reasoning for equality, inclusion, intersection, and mutual exclusivity, each offering unique insights into the modeller’s epistemic beliefs. As the first work on nonparametric hypothesis testing for comparing credal sets, we focus on finitely generated credal sets derived from i.i.d. samples from multiple distributions—referred to as \emph{credal samples}. 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.

Embedding probability distributions into reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHS) has enabled powerful nonparametric methods such as the maximum mean discrepancy (MMD), a statistical distance with strong theoretical and computational properties. At its core, the MMD relies on kernel mean embeddings to represent distributions as mean functions in RKHS. However, it remains unclear if the mean function is the only meaningful RKHS representation. Inspired by generalised quantiles, we introduce the notion of kernel quantile embeddings (KQEs). We then use KQEs to construct a family of distances that: (i) are probability metrics under weaker kernel conditions than MMD; (ii) recover a kernelised form of the sliced Wasserstein distance; and (iii) can be efficiently estimated with near-linear cost. Through hypothesis testing, we show that these distances offer a competitive alternative to MMD and its fast approximations.

Quantifying differences between probability distributions is fundamental to statistics and machine learning, primarily for comparing statistical uncertainty. In contrast, epistemic uncertainty---due to incomplete knowledge---requires richer representations than those offered by classical probability. Imprecise probability (IP) theory offers such models, capturing ambiguity and partial belief. This has driven growing interest in imprecise probabilistic machine learning (IPML), where inference and decision-making rely on broader uncertainty models---highlighting the need for metrics beyond classical probability. This work introduces the Integral Imprecise Probability Metric (IIPM) framework, a Choquet integral-based generalisation of classical Integral Probability Metric to the setting of capacities---a broad class of IP models encompassing many existing ones, including lower probabilities, probability intervals, belief functions, and more. Theoretically, we establish conditions under which IIPM serves as a valid metric and metrises a form of weak convergence of capacities. Practically, IIPM not only enables comparison across different IP models but also supports the quantification of epistemic uncertainty~(EU) within a single IP model. In particular, by comparing an IP model with its conjugate, IIPM gives rise to a new class of epistemic uncertainty measures---Maximum Mean Imprecision (MMI) ---which satisfy key axiomatic properties proposed in the Uncertainty Quantification literature. We validate MMI through selective classification experiments, demonstrating strong empirical performance against established EU measures, and outperforming them when classical methods struggle to scale to a large number of classes. Our work advances both theory and practice in Imprecise Probabilistic Machine Learning, offering a principled framework for comparing and quantifying epistemic uncertainty under imprecision.

The quality of probabilistic forecasts is crucial for decision-making under uncertainty. While proper scoring rules incentivize truthful reporting of precise forecasts, they fall short when forecasters face epistemic uncertainty about their beliefs, limiting their use in safety-critical domains where decision-makers (DMs) prioritize proper uncertainty management. To address this, we propose a framework for scoring \emph{imprecise forecasts}—forecasts given as a set of beliefs. Despite existing impossibility results for deterministic scoring rules, we enable truthful elicitation by drawing connection to social choice theory and introducing a two-way communication framework where DMs first share their aggregation rules (e.g., averaging or min-max) used in downstream decisions for resolving forecast ambiguity. This, in turn, helps forecasters resolve indecision during elicitation. We further show that truthful elicitation of imprecise forecasts is achievable using proper scoring rules randomized over the aggregation procedure. Our approach allows DM to elicit and integrate the forecaster’s epistemic uncertainty into their decision-making process, improving the credibility of downstream decisions.

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.

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. Code is available https://github.com/ma921/CoExBO.

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. optimise based on the average-case risk, worst-case risk, or interpolations thereof. While this decision should in principle be decided by the model operator like medical doctors in practice, this information might not always be available at training time. This situation 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. Our work, supported by theoretical and empirical evidence, showcases the benefits of integrating imprecision into domain generalisation.

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.

We revisit widely used preferential Gaussian processes (PGP) by Chu and Ghahramani [2005] and challenge their modelling assumption that imposes rankability of data items via latent utility function values. We propose a generalisation of PGP which can capture more expressive latent preferential structures in the data and thus be used to model inconsistent preferences, i.e. where transitivity is violated, or to discover clusters of comparable items via spectral decomposition of the learned preference functions. We also consider the properties of associated covariance kernel functions and its reproducing kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS), giving a simple construction that satisfies universality in the space of preference functions. Finally, we provide an extensive set of numerical experiments on simulated and real-world datasets showcasing the competitiveness of our proposed method with state-of-the-art. Our experimental findings support the conjecture that violations of rankability are ubiquitous in real-world preferential data.

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 (SV), 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 SVs from a functional perspective, we propose RKHS-SHAP, an attribution method for kernel machines that can efficiently compute both Interventional and 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 consistent model interpretation. Further, we propose 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 SVs of sensitive features.

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.

Kernel matrix-vector multiplication (KMVM) is a foundational operation in machine learning and scientific computing. However, as KMVM tends to scale quadratically in both memory and time, applications are often limited by these computational constraints. In this paper, we propose a novel approximation procedure coined \textit{Faster-Fast and Free Memory Method} ($\text{F}^3$M) to address these scaling issues of KMVM for tall~($10^8\sim 10^9$) and skinny~($D\leq7$) data. Extensive experiments demonstrate that $\text{F}^3$M has empirical \emph{linear time and memory} complexity with a relative error of order $10^{-3}$ and can compute a full KMVM for a billion points \emph{in under a minute} on a high-end GPU, leading to a significant speed-up in comparison to existing CPU methods. We demonstrate the utility of our procedure by applying it as a drop-in for the state-of-the-art GPU-based linear solver FALKON, \emph{improving speed 1.5-5.5 times} at the cost of $<1\%$ drop in accuracy. We further demonstrate competitive results on \emph{Gaussian Process regression} coupled with significant speedups on a variety of real-world datasets.

Refining low-resolution (LR) spatial fields with high-resolution (HR) information, often known as statistical downscaling, is challenging as the diversity of spatial datasets often prevents direct matching of observations. Yet, when LR samples are modeled as aggregate conditional means of HR samples with respect to a mediating variable that is globally observed, the recovery of the underlying fine-grained field can be framed as taking an "inverse" of the conditional expectation, namely a deconditioning problem. In this work, we propose a Bayesian formulation of deconditioning which naturally recovers the initial reproducing kernel Hilbert space formulation from Hsu and Ramos (2019). We extend deconditioning to a downscaling setup and devise efficient conditional mean embedding estimator for multiresolution data. By treating conditional expectations as inter-domain features of the underlying field, a posterior for the latent field can be established as a solution to the deconditioning problem. Furthermore, we show that this solution can be viewed as a two-staged vector-valued kernel ridge regressor and show that it has a minimax optimal convergence rate under mild assumptions. Lastly, we demonstrate its proficiency in a synthetic and a real-world atmospheric field downscaling problem, showing substantial improvements over existing methods.

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 data arising from 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 sample size, principled uncertainty quantification becomes essential. To that end, we introduce \emph{Bayesian Causal Mean Processes}, the 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 informativeness of our uncertainty estimation, we apply our method to the Causal Bayesian Optimisation task and show improvements over state-of-the-art methods.