arXiv subjects

Tianwei Gao

Publications and source records attributed to Tianwei Gao.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Statistical Inference under Performativity: From Policy Feedback to Self-Evolving Systems

Performativity arises when prediction-informed decisions change the data-generating process, creating feedback between deployment and learning. This phenomenon occurs in policy-making and in self-evolving AI systems that shape their own future training data. Statistical inference is challenging because estimation errors in earlier predictors affect subsequent data distributions and propagate into later updates. We develop an end-to-end framework for statistical inference under performativity. For repeated risk minimization and repeated gradient descent, we establish central limit theorems at fixed deployment rounds and derive covariance recursions that capture both current-round sampling variation and uncertainty inherited from earlier deployments. We develop consistent covariance estimators using policy perturbations and score matching. These results can yield asymptotically valid confidence regions for population iterates and the performative stable point. We further extend prediction-powered inference to this dynamic setting, combining labeled observations with predictions on additional unlabeled data to improve statistical efficiency. We evaluate our framework in synthetic, semi-synthetic educational, and self-evolving large language model routing settings. Our experiments demonstrate that ignoring propagated uncertainty can lead to substantial undercoverage even after repeated retraining. Together, these results provide statistical tools for learning systems that help determine the distributions from which they learn. Our work establish a complete statistical inference under performativity, introducing new challenges and inference settings that we believe will provide substantial value to policy-making, statistics, and machine learning.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

OmniMechanism Design for Human-AI Collaboration with Impressionable Minds

As AI systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, effectively integrating human expertise with AI outputs is critical for reliable decision-making. A substantial body of theoretical work studies optimal mechanisms for human-AI collaboration (HAC), focusing on when to involve humans and how to combine their expertise with AI predictions. However, these approaches largely overlook a key factor highlighted by empirical evidence: human judgments are impressionable and can vary depending on how AI outputs are presented. For example, when AI systems defer decisions to humans, revealing or withholding the AI prediction can significantly influence human judgments. Moreover, existing work neglects deployment-time variability, where conditions, particularly the cost of eliciting human input, may differ substantially from those observed during training. To address these challenges, we introduce a rigorous and theoretically grounded framework for human-AI collaboration, termed collaborative omnimechanism design, based on a novel and computationally efficient contextual bandit variant of boosting for outcome indistinguishability. In particular, we reduce a calibration-type outcome indistinguishability condition to weighted calibration, providing a novel time-efficiency result, bypassing the high-dimension curse induced by complicated collaboration methods and outcome space. Our framework provides a principled characterization of human impressionability and introduces a unified optimization scheme that enables robust and adaptable decision-making across diverse query costs and evaluation objectives without retraining. We evaluate the framework in three HAC settings, examining adaptation to query costs and prediction objectives without retraining, and show that its induced policies perform comparably to or better than the evaluated baselines.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Who Should We Listen to More? Welfare-Aware Preference Acquisition for Pluralistic Alignment

Pluralistic alignment needs to accommodate diverse preferences under limited human feedback. Using AI simulators to label preference comparisons reduces annotation costs, but variation in simulation accuracy across individuals can leave some people's preferences poorly represented in training. We study how to allocate human feedback across people to construct training data for pluralistic alignment, and how this allocation affects the trained policy. To make this allocation explicit and controllable, we define a social welfare objective over individual supervision utilities that measure label quality. Each query's marginal welfare gain depends on its expected supervision improvement, the recipient's current utility, and application-designated priority. Welfare-Aware Preference Acquisition (WAPA) uses auxiliary reference models to estimate query gains and individual utilities, then selects queries by estimated marginal welfare gain while updating recipient utilities. We prove exact optimality of the acquisition algorithm for the estimated welfare objective under a fixed query budget and model predictions. Experiments on six Roleplay collections and four OpinionQA regions demonstrate improved supervision and controllable allocation tradeoffs. Policy training on four Roleplay collections improves preference prediction for both seen and unseen individuals. When prioritizing a designated group and poorly represented individuals, acquiring human labels for 20% of comparisons recovers 75-86% of the average predictive utility gap between policies trained entirely on AI-generated labels and entirely on ground-truth labels.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Provable Pluralistic Alignment: Multi-Party RLHF under Offline Human Feedback

Pluralistic alignment requires learning from feedback that reflects persistent and potentially conflicting stakeholder preferences while ultimately selecting a single collective policy. We study this problem in offline reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), where the party associated with each comparison is observed. Under a shared low-rank linear reward model, we jointly estimate party-specific rewards and perform pessimistic policy optimization under Nash, Utilitarian, and Egalitarian social-welfare objectives. We establish nonasymptotic bounds for party-specific reward estimation and the resulting policy suboptimality under offline coverage conditions. We further consider general pairwise preferences that need not admit a scalar reward representation and may exhibit cycles. In this setting, we construct a pessimistic von Neumann winner policy and derive corresponding performance guarantees. Under these models, our results provide a unified finite-sample solution to a central challenge in pluralistic alignment: learning from limited, heterogeneous, and potentially cyclic feedback, and producing a single policy with explicit collective-welfare guarantees. Our framework thereby makes preference aggregation an explicit and statistically analyzable design choice rather than an implicit consequence of pooling human feedback.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Whom to Query for What: Adaptive Group Elicitation via Multi-Turn LLM Interactions

Eliciting information to reduce uncertainty about latent group-level properties from surveys and other collective assessments requires allocating limited questioning effort under real costs and missing data. Although large language models enable adaptive, multi-turn interactions in natural language, most existing elicitation methods optimize what to ask with a fixed respondent pool, and do not adapt respondent selection or leverage population structure when responses are partial or incomplete. To address this gap, we study adaptive group elicitation, a multi-round setting where an agent adaptively selects both questions and respondents under explicit query and participation budgets. We propose a theoretically grounded framework that combines (i) an LLM-based expected information gain objective for scoring candidate questions with (ii) heterogeneous graph neural network propagation that aggregates observed responses and participant attributes to impute missing responses and guide per-round respondent selection. This closed-loop procedure queries a small, informative subset of individuals while inferring population-level responses via structured similarity. Across three real-world opinion datasets, our method consistently improves population-level response prediction under constrained budgets, including a >12% relative gain on CES at a 10% respondent budget.

cs.LG↗