Equal Error Rate

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems and audio language models (audio LMs) now report low error rates on monolingual benchmarks, but their behavior on code switched speech in low resource, diacritic rich languages remains poorly characterized. We present a switch aware evaluation of eleven modern systems (six ASR models and five audio LMs) on English Yoruba code-switched speech, using a deterministic 2000 utterance evaluation set and a shared scoring pipeline. Beyond word error rate (WER), we report switch localized diagnostics: a switch entry token error rate (SETER), windowed switch point error rates, language specific error rates, and a diacritic insensitive WER. Our central finding is that aggregate WER hides code switching behavior. The best system by WER (an ASR model) is statistically indistinguishable from a leading audio LM on WER, yet the audio LM is significantly better on every switch localized metric. Across faithful systems, Yoruba token recognition collapses (error 0.97 for almost all systems) while English tokens are recognized far better, and errors concentrate sharply at switches into Yoruba. Several generative audio LMs fail as exact transcribers, producing translation, verbosity, and prompt leakage that are strongly prompt dependent. We release manifests, metric implementations, and evaluation scripts to support reproducible, switch aware benchmarking for African code switched speech.

In decentralized decision-making, several agents connected according to a network graph aim at solving a classification problem by collecting streaming observations. Due to decentralization, they run an iterative algorithm where, at each iteration, they can only exchange information locally with their neighbors. While decentralized estimation solutions have been shown to match the performance of optimal centralized systems, we show here that surprisingly this conclusion does not hold for decentralized decision-making. Specifically, we prove that the error probability for the best decentralized decision strategy exhibits an irreducible loss with respect to the optimal centralized classifier. This result establishes a fundamental limit for the performance of any decentralized decision strategy. We obtain an analytical relation showing that this limit is related to the interplay between decentralization and classification. The first aspect appears through the distances between the nodes in the graph, while the second aspect plays through the moment generating functions of the likelihood ratios that describe the decision problem. By applying the derived closed-form relation to different network topologies and inference problems, we observe some interesting and perhaps unexpected behavior emerging. In particular, we characterize the scaling law (with the network size) for the loss over popular network topologies, showing that the error probabilities might differ by orders of magnitude; and we examine how performance is affected by the relative distance between informative and uninformative agents over the graph.

Tool-using agents are being proposed for medical imaging, and their behaviour when a tool returns a false finding is largely unmeasured. We audit whether a ReAct-style tool-calling agent abandons an answer it has already given correctly once a falsified finding arrives, and whether that depends on how the finding is presented. On 20 VQA-RAD closed questions across four vendor-designated model tiers, the agent commits to an answer from the image alone; a negated finding is then delivered either as JSON from an analyze_image tool the agent invokes itself, or as quoted prose attributed to a radiologist. Our outcome is the commission-error rate over cases answered correctly without any tool. Deference is much higher under the prose-attributed claim: at the strongest tier the agent revised its correct answer in 10 of 13 cases against 1 of 13 under the tool (exact McNemar p=0.0039, Holm-adjusted 0.012). We do not claim this isolates the source label. Attribution travels with the delivery channel in our design, and exposure differs because the tool claim reaches the agent only when it calls the tool. The finding is a joint source-and-delivery asymmetry from a small-scale pilot whose pre-specified stopping rule was not met.

An unconditional risk bound on automated decisions can be satisfied without automating anything, since a selector that never acts drives the bound to zero. We show this is structural: any risk certificate is defined over a decision contract, the inputs a system acts on plus the semantic relation under which an output counts correct, and weakening either hides base-classifier error. We develop a decision-contract theory: an error-conservation law showing error is only reassigned among harmful automation, human deferral, and semantic masking; a label-free singleton capacity certifying structural incapacity, with a risk-feasible refinement separating recoverable threshold misalignment from risk-constrained incapacity; and a non-degenerate actionability certificate excluding all-abstain solutions by construction. We instantiate this on ATT&CK-aligned alert triage for LLM-based intrusion detection, the setting that exposed the vacuity failure. Across 3 IDS datasets, 6 LLMs, and 4 error-rate thresholds, empirical false-attribution risk stays at or below target in 90.3% of configurations, with 83.4% mean correct automation. The capacity diagnostic explains every low-utility configuration; its refinement separates genuine misalignment from risk-constrained incapacity, confirmed by an exhibited alternative threshold; a training-stability re-run finds no confirmed structural-incapacity instance; and real fine-grained attack-subtype labels confirm the coarsening-transfer identity under a genuine many-to-one map, with small but non-zero masking mass.

Language-model judges and reward models enable scalable supervision, but finite optimization can exploit evaluator errors rather than improve response quality. We characterize this failure through the covariance geometry of evaluator ensembles. For calibrated judges, the ensemble mean retains common-mode error along the all-ones direction, whereas cross-judge disagreement captures only orthogonal error. Consequently, disagreement can be high despite robust aggregation, or low while shared response-dependent errors persist. We prove that common-mode error is not identifiable from internal judge scores alone. Under a joint sub-Gaussian model, we bound best-of-K selection overstatement and target-quality regret, extending the guarantees to predictably adaptive search under conditional calibration. The resulting search terms scale as the square root of log K and are asymptotically tight for Gaussian projected errors. We further show that noisy quality proxies introduce artificial rank-one covariance without changing disagreement, and propose a bounded two-anchor Bernstein certificate for finite-search error and regret. Fixed-seed Gaussian stress tests over 120 (J, rho, K) configurations and real-model audits validate the theory while revealing the limits of disagreement-based diagnostics under increasing search pressure.

LLM judge panels are a standard evaluation tool, but prior work reports highly correlated panel errors: nine judges provide roughly the effective information of two independent ones, and aggregation closes only a small fraction of the gap. A natural remedy--a signal from a different evidence source, e.g., executing a test suite--produced no distinguishable change in the panel's effective-vote count at scale (-0.04, 95% CI [-0.10, +0.02]). Aggregate dependence and conditional decision utility are different questions. Elementary majority arithmetic fixes the affected set for single-ballot substitution: only decisions with a one-vote margin can change. The empirical question is whether panel error rates rise and useful substitutions concentrate there. They do: the entire accuracy gain concentrates on these pivotal queries, where it is large (+10.4 to +23.3 percentage points across three headline configurations), and is exactly zero elsewhere. We confirm the pattern across three code benchmarks and four panel sizes (a 9-judge extension and 56 dependent subsampling checks, gain +6.5 to +16.1 percentage points). On HumanEval+/MBPP+, a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44% to 85.62% while invoking the signal on 16.2% of queries; signal-only remains stronger at 87.60%. Thus population-level dependence diagnostics and margin-stratified utility are complementary, and the affected-set characterization yields a call-reduction rule for any specified single-ballot substitution policy.

Engression (Shen and Meinshausen, 2024) learns a conditional distribution by fitting a generative model $Y = f(X,\varepsilon)$ under the energy score, a strictly proper scoring rule. We provide a theoretical error analysis of engression implemented with deep neural networks. We decompose the excess risk into three components: the approximation error, the stochastic error, and the Monte Carlo error. Based on this decomposition, we establish convergence rates under the assumption that the target conditional generator admits a compositional smoothness structure.

Post-training quantization to 4-bit weights is widely reported to be nearly lossless. We test this claim for multi-turn, tool-calling agents, where it now matters most. On $τ^2$-bench, across two open-weight model families in dense and MoE variants and two domains (eight cells, 456 episodes each, at 16-, 8-, and 4-bit weights), quantization indeed looks free on the standard metric. No cell shows a score change that survives multiple-comparison correction, and in the cell that carries the largest process damage, equivalence testing bounds the change within $\pm$7.5 points. The process tells a different story. Quantization amplifies the failure the model already exhibits at full precision (tool-name hallucination in telecom, with the same directional trend in retail entity errors) by up to 2.5$\times$ in volume (+17.6 points per task), while creating essentially no new failures. The failure set is the same at every precision (rank correlation $\geq$ 0.94, 0.18% novel events). The score stays flat because the benchmark's ten-error budget absorbs the extra failures. Shrinking the budget to two errors re-exposes a score gap of 17 points, and it does so only in the one cell where quantization added error volume, exactly as the masking account predicts. A targeted error-repair prompt, run for five telecom models at every precision, removes the damage exactly and only where it lives. Both diagnostics, the per-channel error rate and success under a shrinking budget, come from logs benchmarks already collect; we suggest reporting them alongside task reward.

Deterministic KV-cache eviction keeps the top-$k$ tokens under an importance score and deletes the rest. We prove that this design cannot know what it destroyed: evicted values can be altered so that everything the serving system retains is unchanged while the true attention-output error grows arbitrarily, so no serving-time estimator of that error is consistent. Randomized eviction restores identifiability. With a Poisson-sampled tail at known inclusion probabilities, one logit offset performs the Hájek correction inside the softmax, and a survey-sampling variance estimator over the retained set becomes a per-step error certificate with 0.97 empirical coverage at no accuracy cost. On real workloads, seven pre-registered claims locate the certificate's value precisely. Prediction goes to output confidence: question-aware eviction at 25--50% budgets is nearly free, output log-probability predicts failure better than any cache-side signal, and certificate-gated budget escalation adds nothing. Attribution stays with the certificate: it separates cache-induced from inherent failures (AUC 0.65--0.75, against 0.47--0.54 for output confidence) and schedules recomputation better than random or confidence gating. Randomization buys attribution, not prediction.

Quantum error correction can be enhanced by post-selecting out runs that are likely to produce a logical failure, but the most accurate measures for that require costly decoder-level information. We introduce a practical, decoder-agnostic post-selection method that learns directly from syndrome data. The method trains a supervised classifier to distinguish between syndromes from low- and high-noise regimes, and then uses the classifier's output as an abort score for new runs, without requiring logical-error labels, correction operators, or code-specific likelihood calculations. We validate the approach in three complementary settings: circuit-level simulations of the Gross bivariate-bicycle code, code-capacity simulations of the surface code, and experimental logical magic-state distillation data from the QuEra neutral-atom processor. In the Gross and surface codes, learned syndrome post-selection reduces the conditional logical error rate at a fixed acceptance rate, with performance comparable to syndrome-weight filtering. For the surface code, the learned classifier reveals a post-selection transition distinct from the conventional decoding threshold. In the experimental data, the machine-learning score outperforms syndrome-weight post-selection and, when combined with logical-gap filtering, improves the output fidelity beyond using the logical gap alone. These results show that syndrome-only learning provides a scalable and hardware-compatible route to improving the reliability of quantum error correction.

The soft-label Bayes-error estimator beta(z) = E[min(z, 1-z)] of Ishida et al. estimates the irreducible error of a binary task directly from probability-valued labels. Recent work by Ushio et al. showed that this estimator is fragile when the probabilities are not the true posterior: even perfectly calibrated soft labels can yield a substantially inaccurate estimate, and they propose isotonic calibration as a consistent remedy. We complement that line of work by characterizing exactly how the most widely used post-hoc calibration map -- temperature scaling -- distorts the proxy. We prove an exact, model-free identity reducing the temperature-scaled proxy to the classifier's margin distribution, from which we obtain (i) strict monotonicity in the temperature and (ii) a continuous bijection from the temperature axis onto the open interval (0, 1/2), so that a fixed classifier -- with fixed decisions and fixed 0-1 error -- can be made to report any proxy value whatsoever. Under a Gaussian model of the logits we further derive a two-parameter closed form for the entire proxy-versus-temperature curve. Across CIFAR-10, Fashion-MNIST, and SVHN (eight binary tasks), the proxy varies by 56x to 980x at constant test error, the closed form reproduces the empirical curve to within 0.018, and the calibration temperature that minimizes the expected calibration error does not coincide with any stable proxy value. Our results give a precise, predictive account of the distortion whose existence motivates calibration-based remedies, and they reinforce the practical recommendation that a proxy value is meaningful only together with the mechanism that produced its probabilities.

Quantile regression provides a powerful tool for summarizing the conditional distribution of a real valued random variable (r.v.) of interest $Y$ as a function of covariates $Z$ in cases where it shows a large dispersion with high probability, going beyond the situation where standard least square regression is informative/predictive. This article aims to extend this methodology to the pairwise case, when the variable to be explained takes the form of a similarity function between two independent observations, such as pixelated ID photos, as input data of biometric systems) and the explanatory variables take the form of a pair of covariates of the observations, such as the age or the hair color. We establish theoretical guarantees for solutions of this statistical learning problem, considered here as empirical minimizers of a pairwise version of the pinball loss. Leveraging sharp concentration results for $U$-processes, we prove generalization bounds and identify mild conditions under which fast learning rates can be achieved. Confirming the probabilistic analysis, experiments based on simulation data also provide solid empirical evidence of the validity of the methodology promoted here for pairwise quantile regression. Finally, its usefulness from an application perspective is demonstrated by a detailed study aimed at analyzing errors in similarity scoring for facial recognition.

Private continual counting is a fundamental problem in differential privacy: given a binary stream of length $n$, where each $1$ corresponds to the contribution of one individual, the goal is to release all running counts while protecting the privacy of each individual. The standard algorithm is the binary tree mechanism, whose Gaussian-noise variant achieves expected $\ell_\infty$ error proportional to $\log^{3/2} n$ for approximate differential privacy. Whether this dependence on the stream length is necessary has remained a central open problem. In this work, we resolve the dependence on $n$ by proving that every differentially private mechanism for continual counting must incur expected $\ell_\infty$ error $Ω(\log^{3/2} n)$. This shows that the binary tree mechanism is asymptotically optimal in the approximate-DP setting. As a consequence, we also obtain a largest-possible separation between hereditary discrepancy and private $\ell_\infty$ error for linear queries, showing that the known general upper bound in terms of hereditary discrepancy has the optimal dependence on the number of queries.

Deep learning approaches to biometric verification are commonly trained by optimizing indirect objectives, creating a misalignment between the optimization process and the primary evaluation metric, typically the Equal Error Rate (EER). This paper introduces EERLoss: a subdifferentiable, arbitrarily accurate approximation to EER for training deep biometric models. Furthermore, this framework has the potential to be adapted to optimize any specific operating point on the DET curve, enhancing its generalizability. To validate this approach, EERLoss is evaluated on a particularly demanding behavioral biometric modality: keystroke dynamics verification. This task is characterized by its high intra-class and low inter-class variability. Experiments are conducted on the large-scale KVC-onGoing benchmark, incorporating data from over 185,000 subjects across different scenarios. A comprehensive ablation study initially demonstrates the superiority of EERLoss in comparison to existing state-of-the-art loss functions. It also converges substantially faster compared to other losses, reducing the overall training cost. Additionally, a comparison is made between the proposed loss and the KVC-winning architecture by re-training it with EERLoss, demonstrating that the proposed approach significantly outperforms the original SoTA, achieving a relative EER reduction of up to approx. 30%. This improvement on a challenging, large-scale benchmark validates the effectiveness of EERLoss as a task-aligned training objective specifically suited for high-variance biometric traits.

In this paper we prove some concentration inequalities for two types of error probabilities in the Empirical Risk Principle (ERP) in statistical learning, which provide a lower bound and an upper bound for the minimal risk (in terms of the minimal empirical risk) with non-asymptotic high confidence. The usual boundedness condition of the empirical risk function is relaxed to the Gaussian or exponential integrability condition. The confidence of the lower bound of the minimal risk is shown to be independent of the number of training parameters and the dimension of the input vectors, allowing one to detect the deficiency of a learning machine efficiently; and the confidence of the upper bound of the minimal risk is proved to be high provided that the sample size $n$ is much greater than the box dimension of the parameter set $Θ$ in the Orlicz metric $d_{ψ_1}$ associated with the risk functions. Our work is based on Talagrand's concentration inequalities (the sharp versions by Bousquet and Klein-Rio), transport-entropy inequalities and the recent progress in the theory of empirical processes and statistical learning.

Detecting hallucination risk before generation enables abstention, retrieval augmentation, and routing decisions without incurring the cost of decoding. While prior work has shown that such risk can be estimated from a model's internal representations, existing approaches treat this as binary classification over a single decoded output. We instead formulate it as a risk-estimation problem. Under this formulation, we introduce soft-target supervision based on the empirical answer error rate over stochastically sampled outputs - an estimator we prove to be the unique unbiased minimum-variance estimator of the model's per-prompt error probability under its sampling distribution. We further adapt attention probing to the pre-generation setting, enabling the detector to selectively aggregate hallucination-relevant prompt representations. Across three question-answering benchmarks and five models, attention probing outperforms linear probing on short-answer tasks. Replacing binary labels with soft-target supervision further and consistently improves detection quality.

Speech deepfake countermeasures (CMs) are compared almost exclusively by equal error rate (EER), a metric computed at an oracle threshold chosen on the labeled test set. Deployed CMs enjoy no such oracle: a threshold must be fixed in advance and applied to unlabeled target data. We audit this gap with a frozen state-of-the-art SSL-AASIST detector trained on ASVspoof 2019 LA. While its in-domain EER is 0.21%, transferring its LA-calibrated threshold to the In-the-Wild corpus yields a half total error rate (HTER) of 39.5%, with 78.7% of bona fide speech rejected, even though the In-the-Wild EER (11.2%) appears moderate. We then test whether popular unlabeled test-time corrections close this gap, and first prove a simple proposition: any strictly increasing score transform, including z-norm, temperature/shift calibration, and embedding mean alignment under a frozen linear head, cannot change EER. An audit of seven corrections on In-the-Wild and ASVspoof 2021 DF confirms the proposition empirically and exposes two further failure modes: AS-norm with an unlabeled target cohort collapses (EER 11.2% to 60.2%), and pseudo-label calibration that reduces HTER by 38% relative on In-the-Wild degenerates to 50% HTER on DF21, whose spoof prior is 96%. No audited correction reduces EER by more than 1% relative. We recommend reporting HTER at a transferred threshold alongside EER.

Social Learning is a decentralized decision-making paradigm in which spatially dispersed agents collect streaming observations regulated by one of a finite number of models (the hypotheses). The agents are interested in assigning probability scores (the beliefs) to the possible hypotheses. To this end, the agents exchange their beliefs according to a certain communication graph. It has been shown that, under reasonable conditions on the identifiability of the decision model and the network connectivity, each agent ultimately places all the belief mass on the true hypothesis governing the data. However, several questions remain unanswered regarding the evaluation of the social learning performance. One recently adopted performance metric is the rejection rate, i.e., the rate at which the beliefs about the erroneous hypotheses vanish. One contribution of this work is to establish that the rejection rate leads to several paradoxes, which make it unsuitable as a valid performance measure. We then focus on studying the error probability measure. For a binary Gaussian problem, we derive an analytical formula characterizing the ratio between the individual agents' probabilities and the optimal Bayesian probability. The formula shows that this ratio is expressed by the product of two terms quantifying the effect of the network connectivity and the role of the prior information. As a result, an irreducible gap emerges between the decentralized and the centralized error probabilities, which is agent-dependent and does not disappear asymptotically.

Useful audits reveal not only how often a model fails, but also where its failures concentrate. An auditor may test many candidate explanations: long inputs, indirect questions, distracting evidence, or combinations of these factors. The risk is selection. The largest observed effect may reflect a real failure mode, or it may simply be the best result among many tried. We introduce Janus, a procedure for deciding when a proposed error explanation is credible enough to report. The goal is not to generate new explanations, but to decide which ones hold up. The auditor starts with a fixed model, a labeled evaluation set, and a frozen list of candidate explanations, which we call descriptors. Janus scores each descriptor by its error-rate lift, then compares real descriptors with fake ones that have the same frequencies but are randomly assigned to examples. A descriptor is confirmed only if it beats this decoy floor on the data used for discovery and then repeats on separate held-out data. In a controlled audit of multi-table lookup tasks, Janus identifies the planted failure, confirming long-chain descriptors and their interactions. The LLM often stops partway through the lookup chain instead of reaching the final answer. On two public benchmarks, MuSiQue and LongBench v2, the SliceLine baseline flags plausible high-error pockets, but Janus confirms none of them. Ablations show why both safeguards matter. On LongBench v2, an uncalibrated fixed threshold reports 20 descriptors, the decoy floor leaves one, and the holdout check rejects the last one after its lift shrinks from 0.36 to 0.05. The resulting principle separates proposing explanations from reporting them. Candidates may come from any source, but only those that beat decoys and replicate on fresh data become audit findings.

We study the sample complexity of robust binary hypothesis testing under three standard contamination models: $\varepsilon$-additive (Huber), $\varepsilon$-subtractive, and $\varepsilon$-total variation (TV), denoted by $n^*_{\mathrm{Hub}}(\varepsilon)$, $n^*_{\mathrm{Sub}}(\varepsilon)$, and $n^*_{\mathrm{TV}}(\varepsilon)$, respectively. For subtractive contamination, we show that least favourable distributions exist and provide explicit formulas for the same, bringing this model in line with the classical Huber and TV models. Next we show that in all three models, sample complexity may be highly unstable in the contamination parameter $\varepsilon$, increasing by polynomial factors even for $o(\varepsilon)$ perturbations. Similarly, there may be polynomial factor gaps between the sample complexities when $\varepsilon$ is known exactly versus when it is known up to $o(\varepsilon)$ error. Despite the instability of the sample complexity in all models, we show that the sample complexities across models are comparable up to constant-factor rescaling of $\varepsilon$. Specifically, for any fixed $δ_0>0$, the following hold for all distributions $p$ and $q$: (i) $n^*_{\mathrm{Hub}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{TV}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{Hub}}(2\varepsilon)$, (ii) $n^*_{\mathrm{Sub}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{TV}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{Sub}}((2+δ_0)\varepsilon)$, and (iii) $n^*_{\mathrm{Sub}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{Hub}}(\varepsilon) \lesssim n^*_{\mathrm{Sub}}((1+δ_0)\varepsilon)$, and the scaling constants are tight. Finally, we extend our results to adaptive versions of the contamination models.

When an LLM agent fails a multi-step tool-augmented task and retries, the failed attempt typically remains in its context window -- contaminating the next attempt and elevating the per-step error rate beyond the base level. This context-contaminated restart phenomenon is widely observed in practice yet entirely lacks formal treatment. We introduce the Context-Contaminated Restart Model (CCRM): a chain of T tool-call steps, each failing with base rate epsilon_0; after any failed attempt, the subsequent attempt operates in contaminated context with elevated error rate epsilon_1 > epsilon_0. Under this model we derive five main results. (R1) An exact closed-form formula for P(succeed in at most K attempts). (R2) A cascade-overhead theorem giving the additional attempts Delta K incurred by contamination versus the clean-restart baseline. (R3) An optimal budget-allocation theorem identifying the pipeline depth T* that maximises success probability for a fixed total budget B=KT; we prove the closed form T* = sqrt(B * log(1/(1-epsilon_1)) / log(1/(1-epsilon_0))), with K*=B/T*. (R4) An information-theoretic lower bound via Le Cam's method showing K_CCRM is tight up to O(1). (R5) A clean-restart dominance theorem quantifying the exact benefit of context-clearing before retry. We validate CCRM on real SWE-bench Verified data: the IID model overestimates pass@3 by 17.4 percentage points (98.6% vs. 81.2%), while CCRM fits with error less than 0.001, implying a cascade ratio of epsilon_1/epsilon_0 = 7.1. Monte Carlo experiments confirm all theoretical predictions.

We characterize the minimax rate of estimating the second-order calibration error for binary classification, which quantifies whether a higher-order predictor's epistemic-uncertainty estimate matches the conditional variance of the label probability on its level sets. Our key observation is that the sech perturbation kernel, previously used only to enforce smoothness of calibration functions, in fact makes them analytic in a strip of half-width $hπ/2$. Polynomial regression then estimates the calibration error at rate $\tilde{O}(1/\sqrt{n})$, with explicit constants, a qualitative improvement over the $O(n^{-1/4})$ rate achievable by bucketing or kernel smoothing. A matching $Ω(1/\sqrt{n})$ lower bound establishes minimax optimality up to logarithmic factors. As a corollary, we give the first finite-sample guarantee for second-order Platt scaling, yielding a post-hoc procedure that recalibrates both the mean prediction and the epistemic-variance estimate of any higher-order predictor. Along the way, we provide a bucket-free definition of second-order calibration and relate it quantitatively to the bucketed formulation of Ahdritz et al. [2025]. Our experiments confirm the predicted rate and the quality of the recalibrated uncertainties.

Three-dimensional (3D) fingerprint recognition and identification offer several advantages over traditional two-dimensional (2D) recognition systems. The contactless nature of 3D fingerprints enhances hygiene and security, reducing the risk of contamination and spoofing. In addition to surface ridge and valley patterns, 3D fingerprints capture depth, curvature, and shape information, enabling the development of more precise and robust authentication systems. Despite recent advancements, significant challenges remain. The topological height of fingerprint pixels complicates the extraction of ridge and valley patterns. Furthermore, registration issues limit the acquisition process, requiring consistent direction and orientation across all samples. To address these challenges, this paper introduces a method that unwraps 3D fingerprints, represented as 3D point clouds, using B-spline curve fitting to mitigate height variation and reduce registration limitations. The unwrapped point cloud is then converted into a grayscale image by mapping the relative heights of the points. This grayscale image is subsequently used for recognition through conventional 2D fingerprint identification methods. The proposed approach demonstrated superior performance in 3D fingerprint recognition, achieving Equal Error Rates (EERs) of 0.2072%, 0.26%, and 0.22% across three experiments, outperforming existing methods. Additionally, the method surpassed 3D fingerprint flattening technique in both recognition and identification during cross-session experiments, achieving an EER of 1.50% when fingerprints with varying registrations were included.

The evaluation of fairness in machine learning systems has become a central concern in high-stakes applications, including biometric recognition, healthcare decision-making, and automated risk assessment. Existing approaches typically rely on a small number of fairness metrics to assess model behaviour across group partitions, implicitly assuming that these metrics provide consistent and reliable conclusions. However, different fairness metrics capture distinct statistical properties of model performance and may therefore produce conflicting assessments when applied to the same system. In this work, we investigate the consistency of fairness evaluation by conducting a systematic multi-metric analysis of demographic bias in machine learning models. Using face recognition as a controlled experimental setting, we evaluate model performance across multiple group partitions under a range of commonly used fairness metrics, including error-rate disparities and performance-based measures. Our results demonstrate that fairness assessments can vary significantly depending on the choice of metrics, leading to contradictory conclusions regarding model bias. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce the Fairness Disagreement Index (FDI), a measure designed to capture the degree of inconsistency across fairness metrics. We further show that disagreement remains high across thresholds and model configurations. These findings highlight a critical limitation in current fairness evaluation practices and suggest that single-metric reporting is insufficient for reliable bias assessment.

Deep neural networks have been widely used as universal approximators for functions with inherent physical structures, including permutation symmetry. In this paper, we construct symmetric deep neural networks to approximate symmetric Korobov functions and prove that both the convergence rate and the constant prefactor scale at most polynomially with respect to the ambient dimension. This represents a substantial improvement over prior approximation guarantees that suffer from the curse of dimensionality. Building on these approximation bounds, we further derive a generalization-error rate for learning symmetric Korobov functions whose leading factors likewise avoid the curse of dimensionality.

In this paper, the method of gaps, a technique for deriving closed-form expressions in terms of information measures for the generalization error of supervised learning algorithms, is introduced. This method relies on the notion of gaps, which characterize the variation of the expected empirical risk (when either the model or dataset is kept fixed) with respect to changes in the probability measure on the varying parameter. This distinction results in two classes of gaps: algorithm-driven gaps (fixed dataset) and data-driven gaps (fixed model). The method relies on two central observations: (i) the generalization error is the expectation of an algorithm-driven gap or a data-driven gap. In the first case, the expectation is with respect to a measure on the datasets; in the second case, it is with respect to a measure on the models. (ii) Both algorithm-driven gaps and data-driven gaps exhibit closed-form expressions in terms of relative entropies. In particular, algorithm-driven gaps involve a Gibbs probability measure on the set of models, which represents a supervised Gibbs algorithm. Alternatively, data-driven gaps involve a worst-case data-generating (WCDG) probability measure on the set of data points, which is also a Gibbs probability measure. Interestingly, such Gibbs measures, which are exogenous to the analysis of generalization, place the supervised Gibbs algorithm and the WCDG probability measure as natural references for the analysis of supervised learning algorithms. New exact expressions and all existing exact expressions for the generalization error of supervised learning algorithms can be obtained with the proposed method. Such new expressions are intended as structural and conceptual characterizations, not computational shortcuts. Finally, these expressions unveil strong connections among generalization, hypothesis testing, information measures, and Pythagorean identities.