Deep neural networks have been known to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks, raising lots of security concerns in the practical deployment. Popular defensive approaches can be formulated as a (distributionally) robust optimization problem, which minimizes a ``point estimate'' of worst-case loss derived from either per-datum perturbation or adversary data-generating distribution within certain pre-defined constraints. This point estimate ignores potential test adversaries that are beyond the pre-defined constraints. The model robustness might deteriorate sharply in the scenario of stronger test adversarial data. In this work, a novel robust training framework is proposed to alleviate this issue, Bayesian Robust Learning, in which a distribution is put on the adversarial data-generating distribution to account for the uncertainty of the adversarial data-generating process.

Research in artificial intelligence, and particularly deep reinforcement learning (RL), relies on evaluating aggregate performance on a diverse suite of tasks to assess progress.

Forecasting future world events is a challenging but valuable task.

Deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms are predominantly evaluated by comparing their relative performance on a large suite of tasks. Most published results on deep RL benchmarks compare point estimates of aggregate performance such as mean and median scores across tasks, ignoring the statistical uncertainty implied by the use of a finite number of training runs. Beginning with the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE), the shift towards computationally-demanding benchmarks has led to the practice of evaluating only a small number of runs per task, exacerbating the statistical uncertainty in point estimates. In this paper, we argue that reliable evaluation in the few run deep RL regime cannot ignore the uncertainty in results without running the risk of slowing down progress in the field. We illustrate this point using a case study on the Atari 100k benchmark, where we find substantial discrepancies between conclusions drawn from point estimates alone versus a more thorough statistical analysis. With the aim of increasing the field's confidence in reported results with a handful of runs, we advocate for reporting interval estimates of aggregate performance and propose performance profiles to account for the variability in results, as well as present more robust and efficient aggregate metrics, such as interquartile mean scores, to achieve small uncertainty in results. Using such statistical tools, we scrutinize performance evaluations of existing algorithms on other widely used RL benchmarks including the ALE, Procgen, and the DeepMind Control Suite, again revealing discrepancies in prior comparisons. Our findings call for a change in how we evaluate performance in deep RL, for which we present a more rigorous evaluation methodology, accompanied with an open-source library rliable, to prevent unreliable results from stagnating the field. This work received an outstanding paper award at NeurIPS 2021.

Neural networks and Gaussian processes are complementary in their strengths and weaknesses. Having a better understanding of their relationship comes with the promise to make each method benefit from the strengths of the other. In this work, we establish an equivalence between the forward passes of neural networks and (deep) sparse Gaussian process models. The theory we develop is based on interpreting activation functions as interdomain inducing features through a rigorous analysis of the interplay between activation functions and kernels. This results in models that can either be seen as neural networks with improved uncertainty prediction or deep Gaussian processes with increased prediction accuracy. These claims are supported by experimental results on regression and classification datasets.

We revisit the classic ski rental problem through the lens of Bayesian decision-making and machine-learned predictions. While traditional algorithms minimize worst-case cost without assumptions, and recent learning-augmented approaches leverage noisy forecasts with robustness guarantees, our work unifies these perspectives. We propose a discrete Bayesian framework that maintains exact posterior distributions over the time horizon, enabling principled uncertainty quantification and seamless incorporation of expert priors. Our algorithm achieves prior-dependent competitive guarantees and gracefully interpolates between worst-case and fully-informed settings. Our extensive experimental evaluation demonstrates superior empirical performance across diverse scenarios, achieving near-optimal results under accurate priors while maintaining robust worst-case guarantees. This framework naturally extends to incorporate multiple predictions, non-uniform priors, and contextual information, highlighting the practical advantages of Bayesian reasoning in online decision problems with imperfect predictions.

This article presents the first systematic review of unsupervised and semi-supervised computational text-based ideal point estimation (CT-IPE) algorithms, methods designed to infer latent political positions from textual data. These algorithms are widely used in political science, communication, computational social science, and computer science to estimate ideological preferences from parliamentary speeches, party manifestos, and social media. Over the past two decades, their development has closely followed broader NLP trends -- beginning with word-frequency models and most recently turning to large language models (LLMs). While this trajectory has greatly expanded the methodological toolkit, it has also produced a fragmented field that lacks systematic comparison and clear guidance for applied use. To address this gap, we identified 25 CT-IPE algorithms through a systematic literature review and conducted a manual content analysis of their modeling assumptions and development contexts. To compare them meaningfully, we introduce a conceptual framework that distinguishes how algorithms generate, capture, and aggregate textual variance. On this basis, we identify four methodological families -- word-frequency, topic modeling, word embedding, and LLM-based approaches -- and critically assess their assumptions, interpretability, scalability, and limitations. Our review offers three contributions. First, it provides a structured synthesis of two decades of algorithm development, clarifying how diverse methods relate to one another. Second, it translates these insights into practical guidance for applied researchers, highlighting trade-offs in transparency, technical requirements, and validation strategies that shape algorithm choice. Third, it emphasizes that differences in estimation outcomes across algorithms are themselves informative, underscoring the need for systematic benchmarking.

We strengthen previous results for variational algorithms by showing that they are competitive with any point-estimate predictor. Unlike previous work, we provide bounds on the risk of the Bayesian predictor and not just the risk of the Gibbs predictor for the same approximate posterior.

Deep neural networks have been known to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks, raising lots of security concerns in the practical deployment. Popular defensive approaches can be formulated as a (distributionally) robust optimization problem, which minimizes a ``point estimate'' of worst-case loss derived from either per-datum perturbation or adversary data-generating distribution within certain pre-defined constraints. This point estimate ignores potential test adversaries that are beyond the pre-defined constraints. The model robustness might deteriorate sharply in the scenario of stronger test adversarial data. In this work, a novel robust training framework is proposed to alleviate this issue, Bayesian Robust Learning, in which a distribution is put on the adversarial data-generating distribution to account for the uncertainty of the adversarial data-generating process.

Using simulated data and text data, we investigate the properties of these estimators. Lastly, we also study a modified problem in which the observation stream consists of collections of tokens (i.e., documents) arising from a random measure drawn from a stable beta process,