Reliable decision-making in complex multi-agent systems requires calibrated predictions and interpretable uncertainty. We introduce SphUnc, a unified framework combining hyperspherical representation learning with structural causal modeling. The model maps features to unit hypersphere latents using von Mises-Fisher distributions, decomposing uncertainty into epistemic and aleatoric components through information-geometric fusion. A structural causal model on spherical latents enables directed influence identification and interventional reasoning via sample-based simulation. Empirical evaluations on social and affective benchmarks demonstrate improved accuracy, better calibration, and interpretable causal signals, establishing a geometric-causal foundation for uncertainty-aware reasoning in multi-agent settings with higher-order interactions.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the SphUnc framework for hyperspherical uncertainty decomposition and causal identification. The pipeline initiates with Spherical Latent Encoding , mapping multi-agent features onto the unit hypersphere via a Projection-and-Normalization layer. The architecture then bifurcates into two specialized streams: Hyperspherical Uncertainty Quantification , which employs a vMF Concentration Head to compute epistemic entropy and an Aleatoric Head for data noise, integrated by an Information Geometric Fusion module; and Structural Causal Modeling (SCM) , which utilizes Spherical Hypergraph Message Passing with angular attention to identify directed influences. These streams enable both Calibrated Predictive Distributions and Interventional Simulation under the do -calculus. The entire system is optimized via a Composite Learning Objective that balances predictive accuracy, entropy calibration, and causal fidelity.
Dataset
SphUnc vs. Causal-SphHN
SphUnc vs. CI-GNN
SphUnc vs. SphereNet
Performance Gain
p-value
Performance Gain
p-value
Performance Gain
p-value
SNARE (F1)
+7.1
0.003*
+10.3
0.001*
+13.5
<0.001*
PHEME (AUC)
+6.6
0.004*
+8.7
0.002*
+11.3
<0.001*
AMIGOS (Acc)
+6.8
0.002*
+11.3
<0.001*
+14.6
<0.001*
Table 1: Paired t-test results (p-values) against SphUnc. Asterisk denotes significance at p<0.01 .
Dataset
What Baselines Miss
SphUnc Gain
Example Scenario
SNARE (Offline)
Treats correlations as causal and fails to isolate peer influence from homophily.
+7.1 F1; P@10 increases from 0.62 to 0.78; identifies latent interventions.
SphUnc performs a counterfactual intervention that fixes an agent’s latent state and correctly attributes downstream behavior changes to causal influence rather than shared confounders.
PHEME (Online)
Produces overconfident early predictions on incomplete threads.
+6.6 AUC; ECE reduced from 0.041 to 0.018.
For ambiguous rumor threads, SphUnc reports high epistemic entropy and postpones a confident label until subsequent corroborating posts reduce uncertainty.
AMIGOS (Affect)
Treats all modalities as equally reliable and misclassifies when signals conflict.
+6.8 Accuracy; robust under conflicting cues.
When posture indicates excitement but facial cues are noisy, the aleatoric head down-weights the noisy modality and the fused decision selects the correct affective state.
Table 2: Qualitative case analysis showing where SphUnc improves over baselines.
Model
Dropout 0.0
Dropout 0.2
Dropout 0.4
Dropout 0.6
HyperGCN
63.2
60.1
55.7
48.3
SS-HGNN
66.0
63.2
58.0
51.5
SphereNet
65.0
62.0
57.5
50.8
CI-GNN
68.2
66.1
62.3
56.0
Causal-SphHN
71.4
70.6
68.0
62.1
SphUnc (Ours)
78.5
78.0
77.2
75.8
Table 3: Robustness to node feature dropout on SNARE (F1 score).
Dataset
Nodes
Hyperedges
Classes
Features per Node
Time Points
SNARE (Offline Networks)
540
1,120
3
24
5
PHEME (Online Discourse)
4,830
8,000
4
300
10
AMIGOS (Affect)
40
120
4
128
4
Financial Network (Extended)
5,000
12,500
5
100
20
Collaboration Graph (Extended)
10,000
30,000
10
50
15
Table 4: Dataset statistics.
Component
Value
Spherical Embedding Dimension, D
128
vMF Concentration Param, κ
[1, 200] (learned)
Aleatoric Head Dimension
64
Fusion Head Hidden Layers
2
Learning Rate
5×10−4
Batch Size
256
Table 5: Training hyperparameters.
Model
SNARE
PHEME
AMIGOS
F1 ↑
ECE ↓
AUC ↑
ECE ↓
Acc ↑
ECE ↓
HyperGCN
63.2
0.082
71.1
0.088
58.7
0.090
SS-HGNN
66.8
0.074
73.3
0.067
61.9
0.080
SphereNet
65.0
0.069
73.9
0.063
60.5
0.075
CI-GNN
68.2
0.060
76.5
0.059
63.8
0.071
Causal-SphHN
71.4
0.045
78.6
0.041
68.3
0.048
Table 6: Main classification results across datasets. Higher is better for F1, AUC and Accuracy. Lower is better for ECE.
Variant
SNARE
PHEME
F1
ECE
AUC
ECE
Full SphUnc
78.5
0.022
85.2
0.018
w/o Hyperspherical Rep. (Euclidean)
69.8
0.071
76.1
0.065
w/o Uncertainty Decomposition (Only Aleatoric)
72.3
0.055
79.5
0.048
w/o Uncertainty Decomposition (Only Epistemic)
70.1
0.068
77.8
0.052
w/o Identifiability Constraints (Ad-hoc Fusion)
74.0
0.042
81.3
0.035
Table 7: Ablation study results on SNARE and PHEME. Higher is better for F1 and AUC. Lower is better for ECE.
Table 9: Expected Calibration Error (ECE). Lower is better.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 2: Reliability diagram for SNARE: predicted confidence versus observed accuracy for SphUnc and the Causal-SphHN baseline. The dashed diagonal denotes perfect calibration.
Figure 3: Reliability diagram for PHEME: predicted confidence versus observed accuracy.
Figure 4: Reliability diagram for AMIGOS: predicted confidence versus observed accuracy.
Figure 5: Uncertainty decomposition: scatter of epistemic uncertainty (x-axis) versus aleatoric uncertainty (y-axis). Marker size highlights misclassified examples.
Figure 6: Training losses over epochs: total loss and its decomposition into predictive, entropy and causal components.
Figure 7: Training calibration and causal recovery dynamics: Expected Calibration Error (ECE, left axis) and Precision@10 (right axis) over epochs. Legend placed to avoid overlapping the curves.
Figure 8: Relationship between epistemic uncertainty and prediction error. The fitted trendline quantifies how epistemic entropy correlates with empirical mistakes.
Figure 9: Top learned causal edges (directed): green edges indicate matches to expert-annotated influence links; dashed/orange edges indicate model false positives. Node layout uses a force-directed arrangement for readability.
Figure 10: Intervention strength versus interventional entropy Hcausal for example targets. The panel visualizes how uncertainty about downstream outcomes changes with different magnitudes of latent interventions.
Figure 11: Robustness to node feature dropout (SNARE): continuous F1 curves for SphUnc and baselines as dropout rate increases.
Figure 12: Ablation study: grouped bars show component-wise contributions (SNARE F1 and PHEME AUC) when modules or losses are removed.
Figure 13: Histogram of learned vMF concentration parameter κ across samples.
Figure 14: Boxplot of learned κ values, summarizing central tendency and spread.
Figure 15: Computational cost comparison: training time, inference latency and memory usage for baseline models and SphUnc.
Quantifying uncertainty in neural network predictions is essential for high-stakes domains such as autonomous driving, healthcare, and manufacturing. While existing approaches often depend on costly sampling or restrictive distributional assumptions, we propose Hyperspherical Confidence Mapping (HCM), a simple yet principled framework for sampling-free and distribution-free uncertainty estimation. HCM decomposes outputs into a magnitude and a normalized direction vector constrained to lie on the unit hypersphere, enabling a novel interpretation of uncertainty as the degree of violation of this geometric constraint. This yields deterministic and interpretable estimates applicable to both regression and classification. Experiments across diverse benchmarks and real-world industrial tasks demonstrate that HCM matches or surpasses ensemble and evidential approaches, with far lower inference cost and stronger confidence-error alignment. Our results highlight the power of geometric structure in uncertainty estimation and position HCM as a versatile alternative to conventional techniques.
LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have attracted growing attention for improving reasoning through interaction among multiple agents. In this work, we focus on parallel multi-agent reasoning systems, where several agents solve the same problem over multiple rounds and aggregate their outputs into a final answer. Despite their strong reasoning performance, uncertainty estimation for such systems remains underexplored: the reliability of a MAS depends not only on individual generations, but also on how agents interact and evolve across rounds. We propose SAUCE (Sequential Agent Uncertainty through Consensus Evolution), a lightweight, training-free uncertainty estimator that formulates MAS uncertainty as sequential inference over a latent system-level belief. SAUCE aggregates round-level agreement and generation-uncertainty signals through a filtering-style update. Across five backbones, five benchmarks, and two MAS protocols, SAUCE improves misclassification detection, selective prediction, and calibration over a broad set of uncertainty estimation baselines, including standard log-likelihood-based methods and MAS-specific estimators.
Tunyu Zhang, Zihao Zhao, Yusong Zhao +5
Rutgers University · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Vanderbilt University +1
Causal perception occurs when agents with competing Structural Causal Models (SCMs) of the same system infer different probability distributions, including the hypothetical distributions implied by each agent's SCM under the same set of interventions. It shapes how agents reason about the system and how they perceive its fairness. Causal perception is a promising probabilistic framework, but it has remained purely theoretical. This work provides the first implementation of the causal perception framework of Álvarez and Ruggieri (2025). We operationalize structural (agents disagree on the causal graph) and parametrical (agents agree on the causal graph but disagree on its weights) causal perception. We design algorithms for computing interventional and counterfactual distributions and propose suitable distance measures to quantify the disagreement. Using the German Credit dataset, we illustrate how causal perception affects accuracy and fairness in a multi-expert decision setting. We show that the perception verdict is sensitive to the choice of distance metric and threshold. We also show that causal perception changes fairness assessments and threshold-based decisions. Bias proves situated with respect to the agent's SCM, demonstrating that competing worldviews in fairness problems cannot be ignored.