PeTeR: Post-Training Robustification of Probabilistic Circuits

The literature has proposed various robust alternatives to empirical risk minimisation to address failure modes such as distribution shift, label noise and finite-sample degeneracies. Examples include distributionally robust optimization, label smoothing, vicinal risk minimization, and Mixup. However, such approaches are typically developed in isolation, forcing practitioners to commit a priori to a single failure mode even when the dominant mode for the task is unclear. To address this, we organize a broad class of existing methods along three common design axes and derive a tractable training procedure that decomposes robust learning into sequential stages (reference distribution enrichment, input-space perturbation, label-space perturbation, and sample-level aggregation), each with a choice of stance (pessimistic, neutral, or optimistic). This results in a unified design space in which joint hyperparameter optimization can compose and configure robustness strategies suited to the task at hand. Across tabular, image, and reward modeling benchmarks, joint hyperparameter optimization is competitive with the best single-method baseline in each setting, offering a reliable default for practitioners who do not know a priori which failure mode dominates their task.

Despite the burgeoning body of work on distribution shifts, provenance shift-where the relationship between data source and label changes at deployment-remains poorly understood and under-addressed. In this paper, we establish a formal connection between provenance shift, counterfactual invariance, and invariant learning to derive a learning objective for robustness. We then introduce \textsc{DeconDTN-Toolkit}, a specialized evaluation and remediation suite designed to simulate provenance shifts of varying degrees while maintaining the training protocol and the infrastructure of existing benchmarks. We reveal the vulnerability of Empirical Risk Minimization under provenance shift, introduce a robust out-of-distribution performance indicator, and conduct a comprehensive evaluation on existing algorithms. Our work provides both the theoretical grounding and the practical tools necessary to characterize the problem of confounding by provenance, and implementations of methods to mitigate it.

Distributional shifts arise when the target deployment environment differs from the source environment that generated the training data. Robust learning frameworks such as Distributionally Robust Optimization (DRO) and Robust Satisficing (RS) aim to address this challenge, yet their finite-sample guarantees under such shifts, and their systematic comparison, remain underexplored: existing analyses typically establish guarantees either in the source environment or for adversarial worst-case performance over an ambiguity set. This paper instead studies generalization error in the target environment---the excess loss under the shifted target distribution. Our contributions are threefold. First, we derive finite-sample generalization error bounds in the shifted target environment for both DRO and RS. These bounds explicitly characterize the trade-off between reduced sensitivity to shift and the regularization penalty induced by each method's robustness hyperparameter, and they avoid the curse of dimensionality associated with Wasserstein empirical concentration. Second, when partial shift information such as shift magnitude or direction is available, we propose information-directed hyperparameter calibrations and compare the two methods given the same information. Under these calibrations, and in the partial-information regimes we study, DRO and RS exhibit complementary theoretical and empirical behavior. Finally, we apply the framework to a network lot-sizing problem, using it to interpret how robust policies respond to positive shifts in the demand distribution. Together, these results fill a gap in understanding the statistical properties of robust learning methods under distributional shifts and provide a principled basis for comparing DRO and RS.