Agentic artificial intelligence systems introduce a new class of model risk. Unlike traditional predictive models, autonomous agents continuously acquire information, form beliefs regarding latent states of the environment, generate forecasts, select actions, and adapt their behavior over time. Existing validation methodologies focus primarily on predictive accuracy and therefore provide limited insight into the quality of the underlying decision process. This paper proposes a model validation framework for agentic AI based on Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs). The framework decomposes autonomous decision making into information, beliefs, forecasts, actions, and utility, allowing each component to be validated independently. Large language models (LLMs) are formalized as approximate Bayesian filtering operators, and a model-risk taxonomy is developed encompassing state-space, filtering, forecast, policy, utility-specification, and parameter risks. The model risk validation methodology is demonstrated through a portfolio-management case study in which an agent infers latent market regimes from market and macroeconomic information, generates belief-conditioned forecasts, and constructs portfolios using a Black--Litterman framework. Empirical validation combines performance analysis, belief calibration diagnostics, coverage tests, ablation studies, and parameter-sensitivity analysis. The results indicate that latent-state inference contributes independently to decision quality and that the principal conclusions remain robust across a broad range of parameter values. The principal contribution of the paper is a practical framework for extending established model risk management concepts to autonomous AI systems and providing a rigorous foundation for their validation, governance, and monitoring.

This paper presents two Bayesian optimization (BO) algorithms with theoretical performance guarantee to maximize the conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) of a black-box function: CV-UCB and CV-TS which are based on the well-established principle of optimism in the face of uncertainty and Thompson sampling, respectively. To achieve this, we develop an upper confidence bound of CVaR and prove the no-regret guarantee of CV-UCB by utilizing an interesting connection between CVaR and value-at-risk (VaR). For CV-TS, though it is straightforwardly performed with Thompson sampling, bounding its Bayesian regret is non-trivial because it requires a tail expectation bound for the distribution of CVaR of a black-box function, which has not been shown in the literature. The performances of both CV-UCB and CV-TS are empirically evaluated in optimizing CVaR of synthetic benchmark functions and simulated real-world optimization problems.

Datasets often suffer severe selection bias; clinical labels are only available on patients for whom doctors ordered medical exams. To assess model performance outside the support of available data, we present a computational framework for adaptive labeling, providing cost-efficient model evaluations under severe distribution shifts. We formulate the problem as a Markov Decision Process over states defined by posterior beliefs on model performance. Each batch of new labels incurs a "state transition" to sharper beliefs, and we choose batches to minimize uncertainty on model performance at the end of the label collection process. Instead of relying on high-variance REINFORCE policy gradient estimators that do not scale, our adaptive labeling policy is optimized using path-wise policy gradients computed by auto-differentiating through simulated roll-outs. Our framework is agnostic to different uncertainty quantification approaches and highlights the virtue of planning in adaptive labeling. On synthetic and real datasets, we empirically demonstrate even a one-step lookahead policy substantially outperforms active learning-inspired heuristics.

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

We propose two novel tricks to tackle this challenge.

This paper studies the problem of approximately unlearning a Bayesian model from a small subset of the training data to be erased. We frame this problem as one of minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the approximate posterior belief of model parameters after directly unlearning from erased data vs. the exact posterior belief from retraining with remaining data. Using the variational inference (VI) framework, we show that it is equivalent to minimizing an evidence upper bound which trades off between fully unlearning from erased data vs. not entirely forgetting the posterior belief given the full data (i.e., including the remaining data); the latter prevents catastrophic unlearning that can render the model useless. In model training with VI, only an approximate (instead of exact) posterior belief given the full data can be obtained, which makes unlearning even more challenging. We propose two novel tricks to tackle this challenge. We empirically demonstrate our unlearning methods on Bayesian models such as sparse Gaussian process and logistic regression using synthetic and real-world datasets.