Null Measurability at the Symmetrization Interface in VC Learning

The fundamental theorem of statistical learning states that, under suitable measurability assumptions, finite Vapnik--Chervonenkis (VC) dimension guarantees that every proper consistent learning rule is probably approximately correct (PAC). Blumer, Ehrenfeucht, Haussler, and Warmuth showed, assuming the Continuum Hypothesis, that the "well-behavedness" condition of the concept class cannot be omitted: they constructed a concept class of Borel sets of VC dimension one admitting a consistent learning rule that is not PAC. We show that the Continuum Hypothesis is unnecessary. Working in Zermelo--Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC) alone, we construct a concept class of Borel sets on $[0,1]$ of VC dimension one and a proper consistent learning rule that is not PAC. More precisely, for a suitable Borel probability measure and target concept, the rule has true risk one at every sample size on a set of samples of outer probability one. Consequently, finite VC dimension and Borel measurability of the individual concepts do not suffice to guarantee that every proper consistent learning rule is PAC. The result shows, with no need of extra set-theoretical assumptions, that the additional regularity assumption in the fundamental theorem cannot in general be omitted.

Binary classification from positive-only samples is a variant of PAC learning in which the learner receives i.i.d. samples from the positive region of an unknown target concept, but is evaluated under the original distribution (which places mass on both positive and negative regions). This model dates back to Natarajan [1987, STOC], and the characterization of improper learning is well-known -- it even appears in textbooks. The characterization of proper positive-only learning, however, has long remained open. In this work, we revisit and settle this question: a concept class is properly learnable from positive-only samples if and only if it has finite VC dimension and satisfies a new combinatorial condition, which we call uniform exterior separability. Together with several separation results, this characterization reveals a surprisingly rich landscape that differs sharply from standard PAC learning: proper and improper learning are separated, randomized and deterministic proper learning are separated, there are classes for which no ERM is a learner, and finite VC dimension does not suffice even for non-uniform learning. Along the way, we introduce new combinatorial dimensions that we believe can be of broader interest in learning theory.

We study the optimal scale at which real-valued function classes exhibit uniform convergence and learnability. Our main result establishes a scale-sensitive generalization of the fundamental theorem of PAC learning: for every bounded real-valued class and every $γ>0$, uniform convergence at scale $γ$, agnostic learnability at scale $γ/2$, and finiteness of the fat-shattering dimension at every scale $γ'>γ$ are equivalent. This resolves a question by Anthony and Bartlett (Cambridge Univ. Press 1999) on the precise scales governing learnability, refuting a conjecture attributed there to Phil Long that a multiplicative 2-factor gap is unavoidable, and improves the upper bounds of Bartlett and Long (JCSS 1998), which incur such a loss. The key technical ingredient is a direct bound on empirical $\ell_\infty$ covering numbers, avoiding the standard detour through packing numbers. As a consequence, we obtain sharp asymptotic metric-entropy bounds in terms of the fat-shattering scale $γ$: an $O(\log^2 n)$ bound holds already at scale $γ/2$, while an $O(\log n)$ bound holds at scale $2γ$. We further show that the $O(\log^2 n)$ bound is sometimes tight. These results resolve open questions by Alon et al. (JACM 1997) and Rudelson and Vershynin (Ann. of Math. 2006). As an application, we establish a sharp dichotomy for bounded integral probability metrics: every such IPM is either estimable or cannot be weakly evaluated within any multiplicative factor $c<3$, while $3$-weak evaluability always holds, resolving an open question from Aiyer et al. (ICML 2026). We also highlight several open questions on quantitative sample complexity and evaluability.