Pessimism

We introduce an uncoupled learning algorithm which, when employed by all players of an arbitrary $N$-player normal form game with up to $K$ actions per player, guarantees $O(N^3\log^2 K)$ individual regret, uniformly over the horizon of play. The proposed algorithm - which we call higher-order optimism with discounting (HOOD) is a variant of optimistic follow-the-regularized-leader (OptFTRL) that combines a discounted $(N+1)$-th order predictor with entropic regularization over a suitable "lifting" of the game's strategy space. This combination of ingredients is purposefully designed to dampen large oscillations of the induced sequence of play in a controlled manner, removing in this way a key stumbling block of previous attempts to achieve constant regret in general games. Our approach bears several striking similarities to the concurrent - and completely independent - work of Liu, Farina, and Ozdaglar (arXiv:2608.31166), who very recently derived an $O(N^{21}\log^{4} K)$ regret bound through the use of higher-order optimism and an exponential moving average estimator.

Worst-case multiclass bounds do not become smaller when the best classifier is already nearly correct: what is missing is an optimistic rate, a guarantee whose fluctuation scales with the oracle risk itself. For a class of Natarajan dimension $d_N$ and Daniely-Shalev-Shwartz dimension $d_{DS}$, the optimal excess risk is known at the two endpoints ($d_{DS}/n$ realizable, $\sqrt{d_N/n}+d_{DS}/n$ agnostic [HMZ24, CEH+26, Pab26]) and open in between. We close the gap: at every fixed oracle risk $L^\star$, the optimal excess risk is $\widetildeΘ(\sqrt{L^\star d_N/n}+d_{DS}/n)$, uniformly in the alphabet size, attained by a learner that knows neither $L^\star$ nor the confidence level. The upper bound composes the cover-menu-compression architecture of [CEH+26], at the realizable rate of [Pab26], with a new comparator-facing relative compression theorem: a size-$k$ compression rule that empirically dominates a comparator $h$ has population risk at most $L(h)+O(\sqrt{L(h)Γ}+Γ)$ with $Γ=(k\log n+\log(1/δ))/n$, without stability; this transfers the comparison principle of the sharp binary theory [MQZ26] while discarding its Boolean-cube geometry, which does not lift to multiclass labels. The lower bound forces both terms using one class and one distribution at every fixed $L^\star$, by a pair-Assouad scheme calibrated to $L^\star$ and a fiber argument on the pseudo-cubes underlying the Natarajan-versus-DS separation of [BCD+22]. Both theorems extend to list learning: against the best $r$-tuple of hypotheses, the same architecture and the same two engines yield an optimistic rate and a lower bound of the same shape, forcing the fluctuation term that [Pab26] expected to be necessary against list comparators, and removing the factor $r$ from the known realizable list lower bound.

Large language models are increasingly used as decision aids whose probability judgments shape downstream choices. Whether those judgments carry a systematic directional tilt has been hard to detect: calibration metrics aggregate unsigned errors, and naturalistic uncertainty offers no ground-truth probability. When an LLM rates a startup's success at 70% but its failure at 15%, the missing 15 points expose a distortion no aggregate score flags. We introduce OptimismBench, which detects directional bias with inverted pairs: each scenario elicits both P(success) and P(failure), and asymmetry between the two framings yields a signed bias score without ground truth. Across 16 models from 8 providers, fourteen are optimistic; pessimism appears only in Anthropic's frontier tier. Eleven matched base-versus-chat pairs across four families show post-training sets the sign of the bias, with opposite shifts in different families. The pattern survives prompt, temperature, perspective, and self-debiasing ablations. A seventeen-model six-language comparison further shows model identity dominates language, with inter-model variance at 4.7x inter-language variance. We release 3,870 items across 10 languages for per-model directional-bias auditing. When alignment makes a model more helpful, it also tilts its probabilities; downstream pipelines inherit the tilt by default.

A central challenge in quantum machine learning is understanding the scaling behavior of parameterized quantum circuits (PQCs). In particular, it remains unclear how their performance on unseen data changes as the number of trainable parameters increases. Prior works have derived formal generalization guarantees for quantum models, but it is well-known that many such results do not fully characterize generalization behavior in practice. In this work, we show that gradient-based PQCs can exhibit improved performance on unseen data as model size increases, displaying the phenomenon of double descent. This contrasts with the traditional view that larger models lead to degraded generalization. We provide analytical results rigorously underpinning this behavior by leveraging add-one-in perturbation techniques and spectral properties of random matrices. We support these results with numerical experiments on re-uploading PQCs across several data sets and training set sizes, consistently observing the predicted double descent behavior. While other obstacles on the path toward practical quantum machine learning remain, our finding that deeper parameterized quantum circuits do not necessarily exhibit degraded performance provides reasons for cautious optimism.

As humans, we face many decisions that require us to choose between sticking to something and giving up. This thesis uses algorithmic tools to derive insights about such decision-making problems in theoretical models, studying both near-optimal methods and outcomes of social and behavioral influences. Along the way, this thesis sheds light on what we gain and what we lose as we move from a messy and complex real world setting to a very general abstract model by studying various points along this spectrum. In Part I, we study algorithms for sequential decision-making in the improving multi-armed bandits problem. We provide nearly matching upper and lower bounds in the general case. Then, we then ask what is possible if we have access to similar instances to the one we wish to deploy our algorithm on. To that end, we provide guarantees in the data-driven algorithm design framework, showing that a polynomial number of samples is sufficient for learning good algorithms from a class of algorithms. In Part II, we study algorithmic approaches for problems in social epistemology. We start by analyzing what role theoretical models can play in the study of social problems. We then study social and behavioral influences in decision-making requiring investment. First, we provide mathematical formalism in which to study the formation of pessimism traps, a phenomenon identified by philosophers in which agents are influenced by their predecessors to engage in less-ambitious goals. We develop financial interventions to sustainably shift communities out of these traps. The second problem we study is the influence of grit as a behavioral trait in ambitious decision-making. Overall, these works seek to theoretically model phenomena in social epistemology and provide a framework for intervening algorithmically.

Hierarchical Implicit Q-Learning (HIQL), an offline goal-conditioned RL method, selects subgoals by value-function advantages alone. This rule has two coupled failure modes. Optimistic bias treats lucky stochastic outcomes as skillful choices, and mode collapse reduces a multi-modal subgoal distribution to a single Gaussian mean that often falls in unreachable regions. We propose NFTR (Normalizing Flows subgoal policies with Triangle-slack Reweighting). A conditional Normalizing Flow replaces the Gaussian policy, and a closed-form mode-averaging result identifies NFs as the minimal generative class for AWR-based subgoal selection. A triangle slack score, built on the architectural triangle inequality without relying on distance accuracy, multiplicatively corrects the AWR weight to downweight subgoals whose detour cost exceeds average reachability. Triangle-slack vanishes on geodesics in deterministic MDPs and remains a conservative upper bound on composability violation under stochastic dynamics. The RWDR objective preserves AWR's population-level monotonic improvement and admits a three-term suboptimality decomposition. Together, these two ingredients yield subgoal selection that provably avoids the Gaussian collapse described above and remains stable under stochastic dynamics. GitHub page: https://github.com/erdemtbao/NFTR

While pessimism counteracts overestimation bias in offline reinforcement learning (RL), being overly conservative has been associated with hindering certain forms of generalization. However, in this paper we demonstrate that being overly pessimistic does not inherently prevent optimal generalization in contextual MDPs (CMDPs). Instead, we argue successful generalization depends not on the amount of pessimism, but whether the pessimistic structure respects the underlying symmetries of the optimal solution. We prove that a mildly pessimistic, non-symmetric value function can generalize worse than an overly pessimistic, symmetric one. In offline RL, the structure of the pessimism is determined by the structure of the dataset coverage. As such, enforcing a symmetric value function can be non-trivial, and might require techniques such as data augmentation (DA). Inspired by our theoretical results, we argue that DA can best be applied through a consistency loss during policy extraction, rather than the common practice of (regular) offline training on an augmented dataset. This is empirically validated using IQL and CQL on a rotationally symmetric reacher environment.

Conservative offline training is widely advocated as a safe foundation for subsequent online adaptation: if a policy stays close to well-supported behaviour, the argument goes, it is less likely to exploit imperfections in a learned reward model. We challenge this intuition empirically and mechanistically. We train a Qwen3-14B policy under Direct Preference Optimisation (DPO) with three levels of conservatism ($β\in \{β_{\mathrm{lo}}, β_{\mathrm{mid}}, β_{\mathrm{hi}}\}$ derived from empirical log-ratio percentiles), then adapt each checkpoint online against a learned reward ensemble (3,$\times$,Qwen3-1.7B) while measuring true performance on GSM8K exact-answer accuracy. We find that \emph{higher offline conservatism monotonically increases reward-hacking damage}, measured by the Goodhart gap and its area under the curve (AUGC), with Spearman $ρ= 1.0$ across all three conditions. Mechanistic analysis reveals a three-link causal chain: (i) high-$β$ DPO compresses policy entropy, (ii) Low-entropy policies generate responses with reduced diversity, concentrating in a narrow region of the reward model's training distribution (lower pairwise cosine distance), and (iii) despite this proximity, ensemble disagreement (epistemic uncertainty) increases with $β$ and is exploited faster during online optimisation. We further fit a power-law curve to the $(β, \augc)$ data and identify a practical optimal conservatism level $β^{\star}$ that balances alignment fidelity against hacking vulnerability. Our results suggest that the field needs \emph{calibrated}, not \emph{maximal}, conservatism.

In stochastic linear bandits, the canonical Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) algorithm admits a simple frequentist regret analysis but can be computationally demanding, while Thompson Sampling (TS) is computationally attractive yet typically harder to analyze due to its non-optimistic nature. We propose Absolute Thompson Sampling (ATS), a simple modification of TS that ensures optimism in expectation by replacing the signed exploration noise with its absolute value. This preserves the computational efficiency of TS while avoiding the technically involved anti-concentration arguments common in TS analyses, enabling a simple UCB-style regret analysis. We show that ATS achieves $\tilde{O}(d^{3/2}\sqrt{K})$ regret, matching existing bounds for TS in linear bandits. We further introduce Ensemble Absolute Thompson Sampling (EATS), which takes the maximum over multiple absolute perturbations with normalization by the ensemble size. As the ensemble size grows, EATS converges to the UCB objective, recovering UCB behavior in the limit. Experiments show that moderate ensemble sizes already yield strong performance. Our results point to a bridge between randomized exploration and deterministic optimism both in theory and practice.

Detectors for GNSS radio-frequency impairments (jamming, spoofing, multipath) are usually reported with a single AUC measured on the distribution they were tuned on. That number falls once conditions move, and the size of the drop is rarely known in advance because labelled field data is scarce. We ask whether this optimism can be predicted before any out-of-distribution data is seen. On an open, parameter-grounded synthetic testbed with a tunable severity shift, we evaluate thirteen detectors (five physics baselines, full-feature logistic regression and multilayer perceptrons, and single-feature learned controls) across four impairment classes. The optimism gap, the difference between in-distribution and shifted AUC, grows monotonically as the shift deepens (mean Spearman correlation 0.50). It is driven by how many observables a detector uses rather than by whether it is learned, and it varies systematically by class. Centrally, a ridge model built only from in-distribution score statistics predicts the gap for a detector it has never seen (R^2 = 0.47) and for an impairment class it has never seen (R^2 = 0.46); both are significant against a 2000-fold permutation null (p < 0.001) and survive removing the feature that is, by construction, part of the target. The headline findings are synthetic. We then run the pre-registered protocol on three open field corpora: on Jammertest 2024 the cross-detector prediction holds (R^2 = 0.11, p = 0.009), and on SatGrid, whose spoofer power sweep gives a calibrated severity axis, in-distribution AUC overstates higher-severity AUC by up to 0.22 and to the point of sign inversion, with in-distribution AUC and realised gap perfectly rank-correlated (Spearman rho = 1.0). The mechanism survives contact with real data, at smaller magnitude than in simulation. We release the testbed, a software-receiver front end, the ingest adapters and the protocol.

We prove a variance-sensitive regret bound for Thompson sampling in stochastic generalised linear bandits. The argument assumes a warm-up, after which the regret is controlled through using the Gaussian Poincaré inequality. This bypasses the point at which previous optimism-based analyses break down. Removing the warm-up while retaining the same variance-sensitive scaling remains open, and appears nontrivial.

Autonomous AI research agents aim to accelerate scientific discovery by automating the research pipeline, from hypothesis generation to peer review. However, existing benchmarks rarely test a fundamental bottleneck: whether Large Language Models can judge the methodological viability of a research idea before expending time and computational resources. We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions, labeled with reviewer soundness sub-scores, and audited against source papers. SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes. Across 12 frontier LLMs, we find a pervasive optimism bias: under standard prompting, models frequently rate low-soundness proposals as sound, while aggressive prompting largely shifts errors from false positives to false negatives. Additional controls for public-corpus contamination, paper-identifying phrases, surface features, and human audit quality suggest that this behavior is not explained by a single confounder. Our results indicate that current LLMs are not yet reliable as standalone first-gate evaluators for scientific rigor.

Action-conditioned world models are increasingly used as scalable simulators for robot learning, yet current evaluations provide limited evidence that their predictions are reliable under the actions they condition on. Existing benchmarks largely emphasize visual fidelity, leaving unclear whether predicted futures are physically plausible, faithful to commanded actions, and calibrated to failure when actions should not succeed. We introduce \textsc{MiraBench}, a hierarchical benchmark that defines \emph{action-conditioned reliability} as a core evaluation target for robotic world models. MiraBench decomposes this target into three progressively demanding levels: \emph{Physics Adherence}, which evaluates reference-free physical consistency; \emph{Action-Following Fidelity}, which measures whether predictions respect task-relevant action inputs; and \emph{Optimism Bias Detection}, which probes the tendency to predict successful outcomes under failure-inducing actions. To support this evaluation, we curate a human-annotated corpus with over 16,000 judgments across tasks, failure categories, and leading world models. We evaluate 12 representative model configurations spanning vector-conditioned robotic world models, text-conditioned generative world models, open-weight systems, closed-source systems, and multiple model scales. Across this broad model landscape, MiraBench reveals three central findings: visual fidelity is a poor proxy for action fidelity; increasing model scale does not reliably improve action following; and optimism bias is pervasive across current systems. By shifting evaluation from appearance to action-conditioned reliability, MiraBench provides a diagnostic foundation for assessing and improving robotic world models as faithful simulators.

Large scale reinforcement learning has become a central tool for improving reasoning in large language models. At this scale, generation is often lagged or asynchronous, so updates are performed on data collected by older policies. This makes learning inherently off-policy. Most existing approaches nevertheless remain rooted in PPO-style trust-region objectives, treating training as approximately on-policy and using importance weights to correct distribution mismatch. These corrections can introduce high variance, destabilize optimization, and accelerate entropy collapse. Recent work suggests an alternative: rather than correcting the mismatch, one can embrace off-policy data and remove importance weights, often yielding stronger algorithms. In this paper, we provide an intuitive construction of off-policy objectives that include successful off-policy objectives and show that their effectiveness can be understood through implicit pessimism: they optimize toward target policies that are more conservative than their nominal objectives suggest. This perspective explains why some particular implementation choices improve stability: they implicitly control the effective target distribution. We then propose a principled modification that stabilize this induced distribution and improve off-policy learning.

Augmented Lagrangian and optimistic primal--dual methods stabilize equality-constrained optimization through seemingly different mechanisms: the former adds constraint-dependent primal curvature, while the latter adds dual memory. Recent work has shown that these mechanisms are equivalent for scalar parameters. We extend this equivalence to matrix-valued correction. We prove an additivity principle: for symmetric matrix parameters, the ideal primal trajectory depends only on the summed correction matrix, not on how it is split between augmented and optimistic channels. This exposes a design freedom: algebraically equivalent decompositions can have different finite-step feasibility because augmented correction affects primal curvature, whereas optimistic correction affects the scale of the dual memory correction. We formulate the resulting step-size-limited design problem and derive a closed-form hybrid rule that selects a matrix correction, splits it between the two channels, and chooses primal and dual steps using local spectral weights. Experiments on nonlinear equality-constrained problems with controlled constraint-Jacobian conditioning show that the hybrid design improves over pure augmented and pure optimistic endpoints, closely tracks a grid-search hybrid oracle, and is competitive with first-order primal--dual baselines under mild-to-moderate ill-conditioning. The experiments also identify the expected limitation: exact cancellation requires increasingly large matrix corrections as the constraint Jacobian becomes ill-conditioned.

Two-stage recommender systems first choose a candidate generator and then rank items within the generated set. Because the generator decides which items are available to the ranker, changing the generator changes both the policy value and the data support used to estimate that value. This creates an offline selection problem that standard single-stage objectives do not capture: a policy may look good under a retrieval score or a raw off-policy value estimate, but still be unreliable if it depends on weakly supported generator-item pairs. We propose CASP (Coupled Action-Set Pessimism), a support-aware offline selector for finite libraries of two-stage recommender policies. CASP combines doubly robust value estimation with a support-burden penalty. We show that stagewise rules that ignore downstream continuation value can be arbitrarily suboptimal, and we derive population, finite-class, and reconstructed-propensity guarantees for conservative selection. In simulations and a reconstructed MovieLens 1M application, CASP selects lower-burden policies when estimated value and support credibility are in tension.