Accurately differentiating between what are truly unpredictably random and systematic changes that occur at random can have profound effect on affect and cognition. To examine the underlying computational principles that guide different learning behavior in an uncertain environment, we compared an R-W model and a Bayesian approach in a visual search task with different volatility levels. Both R-W model and the Bayesian approach reflected an individual's estimation of the environmental volatility, and there is a strong correlation between the learning rate in R-W model and the belief of stationarity in the Bayesian approach in different volatility conditions. In a low volatility condition, R-W model indicates that learning rate positively correlates with lose-shift rate, but not choice optimality (inverted U shape). The Bayesian approach indicates that the belief of environmental stationarity positively correlates with choice optimality, but not lose-shift rate (inverted U shape). In addition, we showed that comparing to Expert learners, individuals with high lose-shift rate (sub-optimal learners) had significantly higher learning rate estimated from R-W model and lower belief of stationarity from the Bayesian model.

And model misspecification has not been considered as an unresolved issue [36,38,53,54].

Training data attribution (TDA) techniques find influential training data for the model's prediction on the test data of interest.

In the quest to advance human-centric natural language generation (NLG) systems, ensuring alignment between NLG models and human preferences is crucial. For this alignment, current popular methods leverage a reinforcement learning (RL) approach with a reward model trained on feedback from humans. However, inherent disagreements due to the subjective nature of human preferences pose a significant challenge for training the reward model, resulting in a deterioration of the NLG performance. To tackle this issue, previous approaches typically rely on majority voting or averaging to consolidate multiple inconsistent preferences into a merged one. Although straightforward to understand and execute, such methods suffer from an inability to capture the nuanced degrees of disaggregation among humans and may only represent a specialized subset of individuals, thereby lacking the ability to quantitatively disclose the universality of human preferences. To address this challenge, this paper proposes a novel approach, which employs a Bayesian framework to account for the distribution of disagreements among human preferences as training a preference model, and names it as $\textbf{d-PM}$. Besides, considering the RL strategy's inefficient and complex training process over the training efficiency, we further propose utilizing the contrastive learning strategy to train the NLG model with the preference scores derived from the d-PM model. Extensive experiments on two human-centric NLG tasks, i.e., emotional support conversation and integrity ``Rule-of-Thumb'' generation, show that our method consistently exceeds previous SOTA models in both automatic and human evaluations.

Personalised federated learning (FL) aims at collaboratively learning a machine learning model tailored for each client. Albeit promising advances have been made in this direction, most of the existing approaches do not allow for uncertainty quantification which is crucial in many applications. In addition, personalisation in the cross-silo and cross-device setting still involves important issues, especially for new clients or those having a small number of observations. This paper aims at filling these gaps. To this end, we propose a novel methodology coined FedPop by recasting personalised FL into the population modeling paradigm where clients' models involve fixed common population parameters and random effects, aiming at explaining data heterogeneity. To derive convergence guarantees for our scheme, we introduce a new class of federated stochastic optimisation algorithms that relies on Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Compared to existing personalised FL methods, the proposed methodology has important benefits: it is robust to client drift, practical for inference on new clients, and above all, enables uncertainty quantification under mild computational and memory overheads. We provide nonasymptotic convergence guarantees for the proposed algorithms and illustrate their performances on various personalised federated learning tasks.

We consider the problem of ranking objects from noisy pairwise comparisons, for example, ranking tennis players from the outcomes of matches. We follow a standard approach to this problem and assume that each object has an unobserved strength and that the outcome of each comparison depends probabilistically on the strengths of the comparands. However, we do not assume to know a priori how skills affect outcomes. Instead, we present an efficient algorithm for simultaneously inferring both the unobserved strengths and the function that maps strengths to probabilities. Despite this problem being under-constrained, we present experimental evidence that the conclusions of our Bayesian approach are robust to different model specifications. We include several case studies to exemplify the method on real-world data sets.

Accurately differentiating between what are truly unpredictably random and systematic changes that occur at random can have profound effect on affect and cognition. To examine the underlying computational principles that guide different learning behavior in an uncertain environment, we compared an R-W model and a Bayesian approach in a visual search task with different volatility levels. Both R-W model and the Bayesian approach reflected an individual's estimation of the environmental volatility, and there is a strong correlation between the learning rate in R-W model and the belief of stationarity in the Bayesian approach in different volatility conditions. In a low volatility condition, R-W model indicates that learning rate positively correlates with lose-shift rate, but not choice optimality (inverted U shape). The Bayesian approach indicates that the belief of environmental stationarity positively correlates with choice optimality, but not lose-shift rate (inverted U shape). In addition, we showed that comparing to Expert learners, individuals with high lose-shift rate (sub-optimal learners) had significantly higher learning rate estimated from R-W model and lower belief of stationarity from the Bayesian model.

R-W model and the Bayesian approach reflected an individual's estimation of the