Online experiments in ads, recommendation, and member-experience systems are often planned before the dominant interference mechanism is known. A treatment may propagate through budgets, inventory, producer exposure, graph spillovers, or temporal carryover, making the randomization design itself a statistical decision. We formulate this problem as robust design selection over uncertain exposure mechanisms. Given a finite catalog of six implementable designs, the selector compares each design by worst-case planning risk over an ambiguity set. The risk combines exposure bias, assignment-unit variance, minimum detectable effect, contamination or carryover, operational cost, and estimand mismatch. For theoretical justification, the paper develops a geometry-aware guarantee, stating that design bias is bounded by Wasserstein distance to the launch exposure distribution, and this penalty is minimax tight under Lipschitz exposure response. We also prove finite-catalog approximation and a robust selector theorem with excess-risk control, exact recovery under separation, and certified shortlists when the risk surface is flat. Empirically, the same selector gives different recommendations across samples from public datasets. It selects user-randomization on Criteo ads with dimensionless robust risk 1.295, switchbacks on Open Bandit-bts/men with risk 2.105, and cluster-randomization on KuaiRand with risk 2.240. The Open Bandit case stresses known but uneven logging support, with propensities from 0.00006 to 0.594 and a 5.17% IPS effective-sample share. Overall, the paper contributes an interference-aware experiment design framework based on mechanism-robust design decisions, where the output is either a justified design choice or an uncertainty shortlist.

Single-pass uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for classification represent uncertainty by predicting a tractable distribution over the class probability vector. While existing approaches primarily focus on enhancing the expressiveness of this distribution, they often provide limited insight into how predictive uncertainty is structured and aggregated, resulting in weak interpretability. We introduce the courtroom analogy, which conceptualizes uncertainty-aware classification as a structured debate among class-specific advocates. Each advocate forms a probabilistic opinion, and a final verdict is reached by aggregating these opinions using input-dependent plausibility weights. In this framework, each advocate's opinion is modeled as a Dirichlet distribution whose concentration parameter is decomposed into shared evidence and class-specific advocacy. This yields a structured mixture of Dirichlet distributions with semantically interpretable parameters. To instantiate this formulation, we propose Mixture of Dirichlet EXperts (MoDEX), a single-pass neural architecture that predicts the courtroom parameters, enabling efficient and expressive UQ while explicitly modeling uncertainty aggregation. We demonstrate that MoDEX enjoys strong theoretical properties and achieves state-of-the-art UQ performance across diverse benchmarks, yielding interpretable uncertainty estimates with meaningful semantics.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has become a core post-training step for aligning large language models, yet the reward signal used in RLHF is only a learned proxy for true human utility. From an operations research perspective, this creates a decision problem under objective misspecification: the policy is optimized against an estimated reward, while deployment performance is determined by an unobserved objective. The resulting gap leads to reward over-optimization, or Goodharting, where proxy reward continues to improve even after true quality deteriorates. Existing mitigations address this problem through uncertainty penalties, pessimistic rewards, or conservative constraints, but they can be computationally burdensome and overly pessimistic. We propose Wasserstein distributionally robust regret optimization (DRRO) for RLHF. Instead of pessimizing worst-case value as in standard DRO, DRRO pessimizes worst-case regret relative to the best policy under the same plausible reward perturbation. We study the promptwise problem through a simplex allocation model and show that, under an $\ell_1$-ground-cost Wasserstein ambiguity set, the inner worst-case regret admits an exact solution and the optimal policy has a water-filling structure. These results lead to a practical policy-gradient algorithm with a simple sampled-bonus interpretation and only minor changes to GRPO-style RLHF training. The framework also clarifies theoretically why DRRO is less pessimistic than DRO, and our experiments show that DRRO mitigates over-optimization more effectively than existing baselines while standard DRO is systematically over-pessimistic.

We study zeroth-order optimisation under context distributional uncertainty, a setting commonly tackled using Bayesian optimisation (BO). A prevailing strategy to make BO more robust to the complex and noisy nature of data is to employ an ensemble as the surrogate model, thereby mitigating the weaknesses of any single model. In this study, we propose a novel algorithm for Ensemble Distributionally Robust Bayesian Optimisation that remains computationally tractable while managing continuous context. We obtain theoretical sublinear regret bounds, improving current state-of-the-art results. We show that our method's empirical behaviour aligns with its theoretical guarantees.

Figure 1: (a) Precision (blue) and recall (orange) for Figure 2: (a) Real data covers five modes (1-5) and several neighborhood sizes k. Both metrics were evaluated using 20k real and of varying sample count. Figure 1a illustrates the effect of varying k in the setup used in Figure 4b of the submission (truncation sweep 4 in StyleGAN, VGG-16 features, 50k samples). In general, different k yield consistent results and affect mainly the 5 saturation towards 0 or 1. Therefore, selecting k is a tradeoff between under-or overestimating the manifolds.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Spectral embedding is a powerful graph embedding technique that has received a lot of attention recently due to its effectiveness on Graph Transformers. However, from a theoretical perspective, the universal expressive power of spectral embedding comes at the price of losing two important invariance properties of graphs, sign and basis invariance, which also limits its effectiveness on graph data. To remedy this issue, many previous methods developed costly approaches to learn new invariants and suffer from high computation complexity. In this work, we explore a minimal approach that resolves the ambiguity issues by directly finding canonical directions for the eigenvectors, named Laplacian Canonization (LC). As a pure pre-processing method, LC is light-weighted and can be applied to any existing GNNs. We provide a thorough investigation, from theory to algorithm, on this approach, and discover an efficient algorithm named Maximal Axis Projection (MAP) that works for both sign and basis invariance and successfully canonizes more than 90% of all eigenvectors. Experiments on real-world benchmark datasets like ZINC, MOLTOX21, and MOLPCBA show that MAP consistently outperforms existing methods while bringing minimal computation overhead.

In reinforcement learning, robust policies for high-stakes decision-making problems with limited data are usually computed by optimizing the percentile criterion. The percentile criterion is approximately solved by constructing an ambiguity set that contains the true model with high probability and optimizing the policy for the worst model in the set. Since the percentile criterion is non-convex, constructing ambiguity sets is often challenging. Existing work uses Bayesian credible regions as ambiguity sets, but they are often unnecessarily large and result in learning overly conservative policies. To overcome these shortcomings, we propose a novel Valueat-Risk based dynamic programming algorithm to optimize the percentile criterion without explicitly constructing any ambiguity sets. Our theoretical and empirical results show that our algorithm implicitly constructs much smaller ambiguity sets and learns less conservative robust policies.