Traditional machine learning relies on explicit models and domain assumptions, often limiting flexibility and interpretability. We introduce a "model-free" framework of instance-based learning using surprisal (information theoretic uncertainty) to directly analyze and perform inferences from raw data, eliminating distribution modeling, reducing bias, and enabling efficient updates including direct edits and deletion of training data. By quantifying relevance through uncertainty, the approach enables generalizable inference across tasks including generative inference, causal discovery, anomaly detection, and time series forecasting. Our approach emphasizes traceability, interpretability, and data-driven decision making, offering a unified, human-understandable framework for machine learning, can be adapted to virtually all machine learning tasks, achieving competency across all and state-of-the-art performance on anomaly detection and some supervised tasks. The mathematical foundations create a "physics" of information, which enable these techniques to apply effectively to a wide variety of complex data types, including missing data. Our results suggest that this may be a viable foundation upon which to build scalable machine learning and artificial intelligence that can maintain human understandability of the underlying mechanics.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Sluice gate (H Stamper / sluice gate / CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikipedia).
Figure 2: An example of prediction performance where the horizontal axis represents the fraction of data elements that are null.
Figure 3: An example of inspecting a prediction.
Figure 4: An example of inspecting the most anomalous records.
Classification
Howso (targetless)
Howso (single-target)
XGBoost
LightGBM
Mean MCC ↑
0.599
0.650
0.659
0.651
Mean Accuracy ↑
0.807
0.829
0.829
0.825
Mean Precision ↑
0.755
0.785
0.793
0.772
Mean Recall ↑
0.737
0.769
0.779
0.767
Mean F1 ↑
0.744
0.777
0.785
0.768
Table 1: Classification Results across 145 PMLB Datasets. Top score bolded.
Regression
Howso (targetless)
Howso (single-target)
XGBoost
LightGBM
Spearman ↑
0.918
0.924
0.919
0.916
R2↑
0.848
0.834
0.808
0.787
Table 2: Regression Results across 258 PMLB Datasets. Top score bolded.
Figure 5: ROAR curves comparing Howso Prediction Contributions, Howso Accuracy Contributions, and SHAP on diabetes (MAE) and breast cancer (Accuracy) with XGBoost; 3 seeds, no tuning.
Figure 6: An example of inductive bias influencing feature importance, LightGBM SHAP versus Howso prediction contributions on a generated data set.
Metric
PR-AUC
ROC-AUC
CBLOF ( He et al., 2003 )
0.1357
0.5851
COF ( Pokrajac et al., 2008 )
0.2361
0.7783
COPOD ( Li et al., 2020 )
0.2847
0.8262
ECOD ( Li et al., 2022 )
0.2895
0.8331
FeatureBagging ( Lazarevic and Kumar, 2005 )
0.2818
0.8253
HBOS ( Goldstein and Dengel, 2012 )
0.2826
0.8011
Table 3: Aggregated Anomaly Detection Results. Top scores are in bold.
Figure 7: Drone approaching a navigation point behind stairs.
Figure 8: Drone navigating around the stairs.
Figure 9: Driving while avoiding crowd of pedestrians.
Figure 10: Driving while staying within tight bounds.
Dataset
Measure
GES
Howso
LiNGAM
PC
GCM Microservice Architecture
F1
0.750
0.805
0.867
0.963
Jaccard
0.600
0.678
0.765
0.929
GCM Online Shop
F1
0.552
0.665
0.581
0.556
Jaccard
0.381
0.498
0.409
0.385
Sachs
F1
0.549
0.641
0.635
0.533
Jaccard
0.378
0.472
0.465
0.364
Table 4: Causal discovery results scored according to undirected relationships.
Dataset
Measure
GES
Howso
LiNGAM
PC
GCM Microservice Architecture
F1
0.667
0.758
0.828
0.923
Jaccard
0.500
0.615
0.706
0.857
GCM Online Shop
F1
0.240
0.435
0.308
0.471
Jaccard
0.136
0.279
0.182
0.308
Sachs
F1
0.267
0.434
0.436
0.455
Jaccard
0.154
0.279
0.279
0.294
Table 5: Causal discovery results scored according to directed relationships.
Figure 11: A causal graph discovered for a fluid dynamics simulation using a small subset of features.
Metric
Original
Generated
Accuracy
0.959
0.925
F1-Score
0.959
0.927
MCC
0.923
0.868
Spearman
0.921
0.908
Table 6: Synthetic Data Generation Results: Overall Performance Comparison. Aggregated across 5 classification and 4 regression datasets.
Dataset
Reduction (%)
Howso Ablated
Howso With Subsample ∗
Howso With All Data
connect_4
63.12
0.4968
0.4765
0.5696
adult
66.67
0.4907
0.5085
0.5022
sleep
87.89
0.5731
0.6441
0.6353
fars
51.75
0.6918
0.6860
0.7082
krkopt
24.91
0.6094
0.6248
0.6580
letter
27.74
0.9420
0.9524
0.9548
Table 7: Classification results comparing ablated Howso to Howso with all data using Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC).
Dataset
Reduction (%)
Howso Ablated
Howso With Subsample ∗
Howso With All Data
1201_BNG_breastTumor
53.29
0.3348
0.2996
0.3539
feynman_test_1
35.95
0.9915
0.9889
0.9948
feynman_test_20
23.22
0.9866
0.9780
0.9855
215_2dplanes
61.97
0.9653
0.9699
0.9703
344_mv
47.04
0.9973
0.9986
0.9987
564_fried
62.52
0.9538
0.9566
0.9655
Table 8: Regression results comparing ablated Howso to Howso with all data using Spearman correlation coefficient.
Model
Clean Acc
K=3 Adv Acc
K=1 Adv Acc
Howso
0.819
0.596 ( −0.223 )
0.737 ( −0.082 )
Logistic Regression
0.795
0.684 ( −0.111 )
0.742 ( −0.053 )
Decision Tree
0.783
0.564 ( −0.220 )
0.641 ( −0.142 )
kNN
0.796
0.436 ( −0.360 )
0.757 ( −0.039 )
LightGBM
0.835
0.619 ( −0.216 )
0.717 ( −0.119 )
XGBoost
0.834
0.633 ( −0.201 )
0.691 ( −0.143 )
Table 9: Mean accuracy under adversarial attack (27 datasets)
Figure 12: Distribution of accuracy degradation ( Δ Accuracy) by model and attack type across 27 datasets. Box plots show median, IQR, and individual dataset results.
Figure 13: Four measures of performance on different volumes of the NYC arrest dataset.
Prompt
Completed Sentence
Notes
The Solar System has
The Solar System has been relatively well studied, initially through telescopes and then later by spacecraft
The source was the article titled Astronomy, verbatim, except stopping before the period at the end.
The Solar System has
The Solar System has been fairly stable for billions of years, it is technically chaotic, and may be considered a planet.
The source was the article Solar_System, changed at the end, gramatically correct, topically correct, but factually incorrect.
Jupiter is the
Jupiter is the most important deity in the Guatemalan Highlands at this time was Q’umarkaj, the capital of the aggressive K’iche’ kingdom.
The source was a mixture of articles on the Maya people, and the sentence has strong factual basis, though the grammar is a little off. The K’iche’ people and the Maya people in general tracked Jupiter’s orbit and incorporated it into their calendars. The K’iche’ kingdom was described in the Wikipedia texts as having subdued other Mayan peoples.
Jupiter is the
Jupiter is the largest of the Western Roman Empire, and the the king of the planet’s connection with Easter
Example of a nonsensical sentence that is grammatically correct except for the missing period.
Table 10: Typical sentence completions based on approximately 1 million words trained from Wikipedia.
Figure 14: An example of a number generated using the MNIST handwritten digits data set.
Machine-learning models are commonly developed under an assumption that training and test data are sufficiently complete, balanced, labelled, and drawn from compatible distributions. In practice, one or more of these conditions is often violated. Measurements may be missing or corrupted, rare classes may be poorly represented, supervision may be weak, and the deployment environment may differ from the training environment. These imperfections are usually treated as separate technical problems, although they alter learning through a small number of shared mechanisms: loss of information, biased empirical risk, ambiguous supervision, and unstable representations. This short survey organises representative methods around these mechanisms. It reviews reconstruction and generation, rebalancing and representation calibration, learning with limited supervision, adaptation across domains and modalities, and reliability under distribution change. The discussion highlights the limits of plausible reconstruction, benchmark-specific correction, and adaptation without trustworthy feedback. It concludes with directions for evidence-aware learning, uncertainty-preserving prediction, and evaluation that separates visual plausibility from decision utility.
How can we effectively remove or ``unlearn'' undesirable information, such as specific features or the influence of individual data points, from a learning outcome while minimizing utility loss and ensuring rigorous guarantees? We introduce a unified mathematical framework based on information-theoretic regularization to address both data-point unlearning and feature unlearning. For data-point unlearning, we introduce the Marginal Unlearning Principle, an auditable and provable framework. Moreover, we provide an information-theoretic unlearning definition based on the proposed principle and provable guarantees on sufficiency and necessity of marginal unlearning. We then show that the proposed framework provides a natural solution to the marginal unlearning problem and yields auditable high-probability marginal-unlearning guarantees. For feature unlearning, the framework applies to deep learning with flexible training objectives. By combining flexibility in learning objectives with simplicity in regularization design, our approach is highly adaptable and practical for a wide range of machine learning and AI applications. From a mathematical perspective, we provide a unified analytic solution to the optimal feature unlearning problem with a variety of information-theoretic training objectives. Our theoretical analysis reveals intriguing connections between machine unlearning, information theory, optimal transport, and extremal sigma algebras. Numerical simulations support our theoretical findings.
Shizhou Xu, Thomas Strohmer
Department of Mathematics University of California Davis Davis, CA 95616-5270, USA · Department of Mathematics Center of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence Research University of California Davis Davis, CA 95616-5270, USA
Machine learning procedures are commonly evaluated in terms of predictive accuracy and computational efficiency. However, their achievable performance is fundamentally constrained by structural properties of the underlying data-generating process, which are formalized in terms of informational bounds. In this work we examine intrinsic limits of data-driven decision systems from an information-theoretic and interaction-based perspective. We analyze minimal achievable error in classification through Fano-type bounds and precision limits in parametric estimation via the Cramér-Rao inequality, emphasizing that such limits depend on the underlying model rather than on algorithmic sophistication alone. We further discuss how implicit assumptions, such as independence, ergodicity, and distributional stability, affect the validity of inferential procedures. Building on interaction-based modeling principles, we review typical frameworks such as Markov Random Fields and potential based representations for encoding dependence mechanisms. We also describe decision systems, including LLM-integrated agent architectures, as feedback-driven stochastic processes where state-dependent dynamics may induce emergent macroscopic behavior. This perspective highlights the importance of having adequate models for the data as a prerequi- site for expanding predictive capability, and situates algorithmic learning within the informational limits imposed by the models.
Nestor R. Barraza, Gabriel Pena
Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero. Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología. · Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ingeniería.