Goal-driven Bayesian Optimal Experimental Design for Robust Decision-Making Under Model Uncertainty

Bayesian experimental design (BED) has traditionally been based on maximising expected uncertainty reductions from prior to posterior. A major shortfall of this approach is that it leads to doubly intractable objectives that are difficult to optimise, while customising them to particular downstream tasks of interest can also be difficult. Following first principles decision theory, we demonstrate that BED can alternatively be formulated in terms of an expected future loss (EFL) on downstream actions, providing a simple and naturally task-driven framework. Critically, we then show that all such EFLs can be rearranged into singly intractable objectives that can be jointly optimised with respect to both the design policy and a downstream action policy using stochastic gradients, an approach we refer to as ACTION-BED. This formulation further sidesteps the need for any explicit posterior or marginal likelihood estimation and is naturally implicit, requiring only the ability to sample from the joint model over model parameters and data, and evaluate the downstream loss function. It thus allows design policies to be learned more effectively, efficiently, and simply than existing methods, while providing easy customisation to different downstream tasks and losses.

Bayesian Optimal Experimental Design (BOED) provides a rigorous framework for decision-making tasks in which data acquisition is often the critical bottleneck, especially in resource-constrained settings. Traditionally, BOED typically selects designs by maximizing expected information gain (EIG), commonly defined through the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence. However, classical evaluation of EIG often involves challenging nested expectations, and even advanced variational methods leave the underlying log-density-ratio objective unchanged. As a result, support mismatch, tail underestimation, and rare-event sensitivity remain intrinsic concerns for KL-based BOED. To address these fundamental bottlenecks, we introduce an IPM-based BOED framework that replaces density-based divergences with integral probability metrics (IPMs), including the Wasserstein distance, Maximum Mean Discrepancy, and Energy Distance, resulting in a highly flexible plug-and-play BOED framework. We establish theoretical guarantees showing that IPM-based utilities provide stronger geometry-aware stability under surrogate-model error and prior misspecification than classical EIG-based utilities. We also validate the proposed framework empirically, demonstrating that IPM-based designs yield highly concentrated credible sets. Furthermore, by extending the same sample-based BOED template in a plug-and-play manner to geometry-aware discrepancies beyond the IPM class, illustrated by a neural optimal transport estimator, we achieve accurate optimal designs in high-dimensional settings where conventional nested Monte Carlo estimators and advanced variational methods fail.

Scientific experiments are often designed to maximize information gain, yet in many applications the primary objective is to support reliable downstream decision-making. Existing decision-aware experimental design and active learning methods typically assume well-specified outcome models and implicitly rely on the stability of the optimal decision under real-world perturbations. In practice, however, experimental outcomes are frequently influenced by hidden or weakly modeled effects, which can substantially alter decision optimality and lead to misleading conclusions. We study sequential adversarially robust decision-aware experimental design, where data acquisition has to take into account information gain against plausible worst-case unexpected effects, modeled here as variation in adversarial variables. Building on Bayesian decision theory, we formalize an adversarially robust optimal decision under this setting and derive a principled Bayesian experimental design criterion. The criterion explicitly targets decision stability rather than nominal optimality. Experiments on synthetic and real-world scientific datasets show that conventional decision-aware design can converge rapidly to high confidence yet fragile decisions, while our robustness-aware approach yields decisions that are significantly more stable and reliable under adversarial variation.