Worst-Case Sensitivity

Machine learning models can achieve strong test performance while relying on demographic or acquisition-related shortcuts. We propose counterfactual (CF) marginalisation as a test-time evaluation procedure for assessing robustness of classification models to such variables. Given a CF image generator, we intervene on nuisance parent variables such as age or sex, generate CF versions of each test image, and average predictions over a target intervention distribution. This produces intervention-aware predictions that marginalise demographic effects while preserving patient-specific latent information. We use these predictions to define metrics for CF risk, calibration, stability and worst-case sensitivity. We demonstrate this framework's utility for quantitative robustness evaluation.

Consistent submodular maximization studies the tradeoff between solution quality and stability when elements arrive over time. For a monotone submodular objective, which models diminishing returns, an algorithm maintains a set of at most $k$ available elements and changes only $O(1)$ elements after each insertion. Dütting et al. [2025] established a tight $2/3$ approximation with unrestricted computation and a polynomial-time $0.51$ approximation. They left open at STOC 2025 whether efficient algorithms can match the offline $1-1/e$ guarantee. We resolve this problem by proving that the supremum approximation achievable with polynomially many value queries and worst-case constant recourse is $$β=2-\sqrt2\approx0.5858<1-1/e.$$ For every $\varepsilon>0$, our randomized algorithm attains $β-\varepsilon$ with $O(\varepsilon^{-2})$ changes per insertion. Any fixed improvement requires exponentially many queries before one critical insertion or linear recourse of $Ω(k)$ changes at that insertion, even with unlimited queries afterwards. This gap quantifies the cost of consistency: the current oracle hides which elements will be needed after an arrival. We also determine the exact curvature-dependent threshold $1-(\sqrt2-1)\vartheta$, attain $1-1/e-\varepsilon$ for weighted coverage with $O(\varepsilon^{-1})$ recourse, and separate the existence of universal future-price certificates from their efficient computation. Our algorithm has a bounded-bit polynomial-time implementation for polynomial-bit rational oracle answers; the lower bound uses only logarithmic-bit rational answers.

The single-selection prophet inequality is a canonical Bayesian online selection problem in which independent nonnegative values arrive sequentially and the decision-maker must irrevocably select at most one. Classical single-threshold guarantees are tight in the worst case, but the hard instances that prove tightness are highly irregular: the prophet's advantage is driven by rare, very large realizations of the maximum. We refine this worst-case picture by imposing a bound on the relative variance of the prophet's value, $\mathrm{Var}(\max_{i\in[n]}X_i)/\mathbb E[\max_{i\in[n]}X_i]^2$. This yields a nonparametric complexity measure that interpolates between deterministic instances, where the full prophet value can be recovered, and the unrestricted worst-case regime. Our main technical contribution is a general kernel method for single-threshold prophet inequalities. The method represents an instance by the quantile function of the maximum and rewrites the payoff of a threshold as a linear kernel functional of this quantile. This turns the worst-case analysis into an infinite-dimensional convex program, restores strong minimax duality in quantile space, and reduces the bounded-variance adversary's problem to a one-parameter variational family. Applying this framework, we obtain an exact characterization of the IID bounded-variance curve and asymptotically optimal finite-horizon thresholds, a closed-form expression for the fixed-order non-identical model, and a prophet-secretary lower-bound program together with a strict separation from the IID benchmark at every positive finite variance constraint. As a further application of the same kernel viewpoint, we derive an exact formula for IID random horizons under a convexity condition on the horizon pgf, which includes monotone-hazard-rate horizons, highlighting the broad applicability of this new technique for single threshold settings.

The paper addresses several ranking-dependent decision support methods. Ordinal information on compared objects can be used to improve the quality of expert data during estimation and help reduce the number of comparisons that the experts need to perform. In the paper we compare three incomplete ranking-dependent pair-wise comparison patterns which can be used in the Analytic Hierarchy Process - Best-worst method, Best-Second Best (Top 2) method, and the original maximum difference method. The first two comparison patterns (and respective methods) are incomplete, while the third can be a complete one. We determine conditions under which these three methods can be compared in terms of stability to expert errors. We also present the results of a simulation-type experiment, in which the three methods are compared. The research allows us to define the most stable incomplete ranking-dependent pair-wise comparison pattern and reduce the number of comparisons without loss of credibility of expert session results. The research contributes to algorithmic, cognitive, and applied aspects of decision support in uncertain environments.

Algorithmic recourse seeks to help individuals reverse unfavorable automated decisions by recommending actionable changes that achieve a desired outcome. As an individual usually has several distinct routes to a favorable decision, and different people can act on different ones, a recourse system should offer multiple realistic alternatives rather than one. Existing approaches formulate recourse as an optimization problem that constructs one or a small set of counterfactuals rather than modeling the underlying space of feasible solutions, and in practice each sacrifices diversity, plausibility, or feasibility to secure the others. We propose Tractable Recourse Distributions, a probabilistic framework that represents the space of feasible alternatives for a given factual instance as a probability distribution over favorable outcomes. For commonly used cost functions based on proximity and the number of feature changes, we show that this distribution admits an exact representation as a probabilistic circuit, obtained by exponentially tilting the circuit; each individual's distribution is therefore available in closed form, without retraining the model. Sampling from these distributions naturally produces diverse and plausible recourses, while the tilting parameters provide explicit control over their proximity and sparsity. Experiments on standard algorithmic recourse benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework attains diversity, plausibility, and feasibility simultaneously, while retaining sufficient probability mass over feasible counterfactuals for rejection sampling to be practical. A visual study on MNIST illustrates how the tilt strength trades proximity against validity.

In recent work, Marcussen, Rubinfeld, and Sudan introduced the notion of quality control problems, which aim to capture the task of determining if a given input is truly random. Formally, their goal is to accept typical inputs from the specified distribution while rejecting every input whose value of a specified statistic is far from the distributional baseline. This captures the empirical practice of using specified statistics as a proxy for the quality of randomness. Empirical algorithms, however, have not exploited the asymmetry in the definition of quality control problems, which require soundness guarantees in the worst-case while only seeking average-case completeness. Their work abstracted a problem definition emphasizing this asymmetry and used it to give efficient quality control algorithms for assessing the randomness of graphs. In this work, we introduce and study quality control problems over sequences, where the goal is to distinguish a sequence of i.i.d. characters from sequences where some specified pattern appears too often (or too infrequently) as a subsequence. We consider this problem in both the finite-alphabet setting and for real-valued sequences. We refer to the former setting as the pattern counting problem. In the latter case, the natural notion of a pattern is to consider the relative ordering of the characters in the subsequence, and we refer to this as the permutation pattern counting problem. Algorithms to approximately count (permutation) patterns of length $k$ in a worst-case sequence of length $n$ can provably require exponential in $k$ queries into the sequence. In contrast, we show that by taking advantage of the asymmetry in the definition of quality control, we give algorithms that run in poly$(k)$ time to solve these problems. We also prove that any quality control algorithm (over some natural distributions) requires superlinear queries in $k$.

For $n$ unit vectors $x_1,\ldots,x_n \in \mathbb{R}^d$, we study the continuous ReLU derivative Gram matrix $H$, whose entries are obtained by averaging pairwise gated inner products over a standard Gaussian direction. Writing $Δ_\pm := \min_{i \neq j} \min\{ \|x_i-x_j\|_2, \|x_i+x_j\|_2 \}$ for their projective separation, we prove the universal dimension-free lower bound $λ_{\min}(H) = Ω( Δ_\pm/\sqrt{\log n} )$. Conversely, we construct worst-case families satisfying the matching upper bound $λ_{\min}(H) = O( Δ_\pm/\sqrt{\log n} )$, showing that this rate is tight up to universal constants.

We study stochastic multi-armed bandits on dynamic graphs, where arms correspond to the vertices of a network with time-varying edges. In this setting, the learner is restricted to local movement, selecting only its current node or an immediate neighbor at each round. This constraint decouples best-arm identification from exploitation: even after the optimal arm is identified, the learner may remain unable to reach it through the evolving topology. We identify a process-agnostic structural condition, based on sliding-window mixing, that ensures the graph's intrinsic walk remains stable for both exploration and navigation. Under this regime, we analyze a family of local explore-then-commit algorithms and establish sublinear expected regret. Our framework includes a reward-aware strategy, for which we prove a worst-case safety theorem and a separate performance gain theorem.

In 1937, Stefan Kaczmarz proposed a simple algorithm for solving systems of linear equations. This algorithm turned out to be the earliest known example of stochastic gradient descent, a ubiquitous computing paradigm that drives the training of modern AI models such as ChatGPT and Gemini. Now, those AI models have joined forces to discover the worst-case complexity of the Kaczmarz algorithm. This paper tells the story of how it happened.

Contextual bandits with graph-structured arms arise in recommendation, citation retrieval, and social advertising, where arms connected on a graph tend to share reward signal. Standard dimensionality reduction ignores this structure, inflating exploration cost by a factor of $d/k$. We propose GraphDR-LinUCB, which projects arm features onto the graph's low-frequency spectral subspace and runs linear UCB in the resulting $k$-dimensional space. We prove the first $\wtO(k\sqrt{T})$ regret bound for spectral-projection-based contextual bandits, reducing dimension dependence from $d$ to $k$; a perturbation argument extends this to noisy graphs, with an explicit penalty for reward-smoothness mismatch and graph-estimation error. Our central theoretical finding is that the high-frequency reward component need not incur a worst-case linear-in-$T$ penalty: its actual cost depends on its realized impact along the played path, not on its total energy. A simple spectral comparison between subspaces ($Γ_k$) predicts which reducer wins on a given dataset, correctly calling five of six real-dataset outcomes without any fitted threshold. Across a synthetic benchmark and six real datasets (MovieLens, Amazon, LastFM, ogbn-arxiv, MIND), GraphDR-LinUCB reduces cumulative regret by $15\times$ over full-dimensional LinUCB and outperforms competing graph-aware methods on five of six; the single failure is precisely where the graph's spectral subspace is misaligned with the reward.

Barren plateaus are stated as an average-case phenomenon: pick an ansatz, initialize it naively, and concentration follows. This has led to the common view that a potential cure for barren plateaus is simply to initialize the parameters more carefully. Here we show that the situation is subtler. We introduce a first-moment framework that gives a simple operator-level diagnostic for when an initialization may escape the fully concentrated barren-plateau fixed point, and for comparing the biases induced by different initialization strategies. Our framework recovers several known initialization schemes such as identity and Gaussian initialization, but also shows that barren-plateau avoidance is highly non-unique. Indeed, many shifted, biased, and non-symmetric parameter distributions can avoid concentration, and these choices need not be equivalent. In fact, our results show that one can generate exponentially many families of inequivalent initialization strategies. Then, our numerics indicate that different first-moment-distinct initializations can lead to different attained minima, suggesting that avoiding barren plateaus via smart initializations can trade the exponential concentration problem for the challenge of selecting the right trainable pocket amongst many options.

Finding the shortest program that generates a sequence is uncomputable, and for six decades that fact has been mistaken for a wall around finding any generating program. It is not a wall but a price, and this paper measures it. For every algorithm that learns about a candidate program only through its score, a class spanning Levin search, evolutionary methods, simulated annealing, and the cross-entropy method, we define the coupling width of a search problem and prove an unconditional worst-case lower bound, exponential in that width with base one less than the domain size. From it follows a conservation law: structural knowledge injected into a search trades one for one against the search it removes, and their sum can never fall below the length of the program sought. Levin's 1973 upper bound and the lower bound proved here are the two ends of one conserved quantity, closing on each other as the instruction set grows. The only escape is to read a candidate's structure rather than its score, and its price, which we prove for generic targets, is incompleteness. A deterministic engine built on this theory recovers a generating program, certified by compressing its data and predicting an unseen continuation, for 2,383 of 3,914 sequences across four independent populations, including 244 of the 256 elementary cellular automata, with measured discovery cost rising along program length more than an order of magnitude inside the score-oracle worst case.

The robustness of deep neural networks is crucial for safety-critical deployments, yet existing evaluation methods are often attack-dependent and lack interpretability. We propose a principled, attack-agnostic robustness metric based on the spectral norm of the Fisher Information Matrix (FIM), which quantifies the worst-case sensitivity of the model's output distribution to input perturbations. Theoretically, we establish that the FIM equals the variance of the input Jacobian and derive closed-form spectral bounds for common architectures, including VGG, ResNet, DenseNet, and Transformer, providing the first theoretical robustness ranking. To enable scalable evaluation, we develop efficient algorithms, including power iteration and Hutchinson-based estimation, that support both white-box and black-box settings. Extensive experiments across multiple datasets, including CIFAR, ImageNet, and medical images, and across multiple architectures show a strong correlation between our metric and adversarial vulnerability. Our framework serves as an interpretable diagnostic tool that complements attack-based evaluations, offering insights into architectural sensitivity and guiding the design of more robust models. Code is available at: https://github.com/franz-chang/SRP/.

The framework of robust Markov decision processes (RMDPs) allows the design of reinforcement learning agents that satisfy performance guarantees under worst-case transition dynamics. Traditional RMDPs consider discrete-time dynamics and recently, sample-efficient policy gradient algorithms have been considered in this context. This paper investigates policy gradient algorithms within a continuous-time RMDP framework. Policy gradients and adversarial gradients are derived using pathwise and adjoint-based formulas for stochastic and ordinary differential equations. We propose double-loop optimisers to obtain linear convergence in the oracle-based setting and an $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\frac{1}{ε^2})$ sample complexity in the sample-based setting in an analysis which also derives novel tools for the framework of undiscounted total cost MDPs. Additionally, we propose mean-field optimisers as distributional optimisers with an $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\frac{1}{K})$ oracle-based convergence rate and an $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\frac{N^2}ε)$ sample complexity under $N$-particle approximation. The effectiveness of continuous-time policy gradient algorithms is confirmed for both optimisers on continuous-time RMDPs with neural ordinary differential equation dynamics.

Selection bias is a common and often unavoidable aspect of real-world data that challenges the generalizability of machine learning models. When models trained on biased data are deployed in the broader target population, poor model generalization may lead to real harm, particularly in high-risk settings such as healthcare. This risk highlights the need for practitioners to reliably assess model generalizability prior to deployment. However, existing methods for predicting model performance rely on unrealistic access to the target distribution or knowledge of the selection mechanism causing bias. To address these limitations, we propose a novel upper bound on the worst-case model performance on the target population under the realistic setting where the selection mechanism and the target population data are only partially observed. We demonstrate the validity and practical utility of our method through experiments on fully synthetic data, semi-synthetic data derived from the All of Us Research Program, and real-world selection bias in MIMIC-IV. Our work offers a principled and practical tool to estimate the impact of selection bias in an otherwise intractable setting, thereby enabling practitioners to build safer and more generalizable models in healthcare and beyond.

We present improved bounds for estimating discrete probability distributions under the $\ell_\infty$ norm. These include minimax bounds in expectation and high-probability tail bounds. We resolve some of the open questions posed in Kontorovich and Painsky (JMLR, 2025) -- including a fully empirical version of the tightest risk bound they presented and identifying the form of the worst-case extremal distribution. Encouraging empirical results are reported as well.

We study language generation in the limit under bounded memory. In this task, a learner observes examples from an unknown target language one at a time and must eventually output only new valid examples. Prior work assumes access to the entire history, a strong assumption since realistic algorithms retain limited past information. Classical work in learning theory shows memory constraints dramatically alter learnability; we extend this to language generation. First, we study memoryless generators. Under a mild enumeration restriction, every countable collection of infinite languages remains generable without memory. Without this restriction, we exactly characterize when memoryless generation is possible. For finite collections, we characterize the optimal minimax density achievable by memoryless generators -- the best density guaranteed against any collection of a given size. This combinatorial bound relies on Sperner's theorem and symmetric chain decompositions. We further show that a sliding window of the last $W$ examples does not improve this worst-case density, whereas allowing it to store $b$ adaptively chosen past examples improves the achievable density for every $b \geq 1$. Finally, we revisit identification in the limit, where the learner must converge to a single correct hypothesis for the target language. We focus on its incremental variant, where the learner remembers only its previous guess. Here, although exact identification fails on a collection of just three languages, a mild relaxation requiring convergence to an ``approximate'' version of the target is achievable for every finite collection. These results show bounded memory affects these tasks differently: generation remains achievable for every countable collection, while density and identification are confined to finite collections, with guarantees weakening as the collection grows.

Reinforcement learning with multinomial logistic (MNL) function approximation has become an important framework due to its flexibility and broad applicability. While existing studies have established regret guarantees under worst-case analysis, they do not capture how performance depends on the variability of the interaction between the learner and the environment. In this paper, we develop a new theoretical analysis for MNL-based Markov decision processes that yields explicit variance-adaptive regret bounds. Our algorithm is computationally efficient and achieves the instance-wise optimal rate of regret, narrowing the gap between upper and lower bounds. Our numerical experiments validate that our method learns optimal policies more efficiently than conventional approaches.

Emotional Support Dialogue Systems (ESDSes) are increasingly evaluated and trained with LLM-simulated seekers. However, such simulated seekers often behave as cooperative, average-case users who disclose clearly, respond constructively, and accept support within a few turns. This can lead to overly optimistic evaluation and obscure whether ESDSes can handle difficult help-seeking interactions. In this work, we study ESDS evaluation under worst-case interactions, where seekers are hard to help due to low engagement, resistance, limited self-disclosure, emotional volatility, or rigid negative interpretations. We first conduct an expert simulation study with eight experienced counselling professionals, who simulate difficult seekers, interact with existing Chinese ESDSes, provide scale ratings, and participate in semi-structured interviews. Based on this study, we derive worst-case seeker behaviours and identify key limitations of current systems. We then propose a worst-case evaluation framework consisting of an LLM-based worst-case seeker simulator and four worst-case-oriented metrics: Deep Emotional Understanding, Guided Exploration, Balanced Emotional Support, and Authentic and Grounded Support. Evaluating 17 systems, we find that nearly all models suffer substantial performance drops under worst-case interactions. Large general-purpose LLMs are generally more robust than specialised ESDSes, but even the strongest models struggle to sustain engagement and improve seekers' emotional states. Finally, we show that worst-case simulation can also generate useful training data, improving the robustness of smaller models.

Behavior Foundation Models (BFMs) enable scalable imitation learning (IL) by pretraining task-agnostic representations that can be rapidly adapted to new tasks. However, existing BFMs assume fixed environment dynamics, limiting their robustness under real-world shifts such as changes in friction, actuation, or sensor noise. We address this by formulating BFM task-inference as a robust minimax optimization problem, enabling adaptation to worst-case dynamics perturbations without modifying pretraining. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first BFM-based framework that achieves robustness to dynamics shifts while relying solely on offline data from a single nominal environment. Our approach significantly outperforms standard BFM and robust offline IL baselines under dynamics shifts. These results demonstrate that robust policy can be achieved entirely at task-inference time, improving the practicality of BFMs in dynamic settings.

We present a new algorithm for deciding formula entailment in orthologic (a sound approximation of classical logic) that avoids the costly preprocessing phase of prior implementations while retaining the same $\mathcal{O}(n^2(1+|A|))$ worst-case complexity. We then introduce a family of synthetic SAT benchmarks based on the observation that, for any formula $φ$, the equivalence $φ\leftrightarrow \mathrm{NF}_{\mathrm{OL}}(φ)$ is a tautology whose Tseitin encoding yields unsatisfiable instances that are hard for state-of-the-art SAT solvers yet have short orthologic proofs. Applied to EPFL arithmetic circuits, our algorithm solves these instances efficiently while Kissat times out on a significant fraction. Finally, we show that using orthologic normalization as a preprocessing step can improve SAT solving time on some hard problems.

We revisit combinatorial Thompson sampling (CTS) for semi-bandits with sleeping arms, where arm availability varies over time and actions must satisfy combinatorial constraints, as in wireless mesh routing with fluctuating link availability. Despite its practical relevance, CTS has been hindered by several long-standing problems: (i) the absence of worst-case regret guarantees in the semi-bandit setting even without sleeping arms, (ii) the lack of theory under adversarially varying availability, and (iii) the consistently weak empirical performance of CTS with Gaussian priors (CTS-G). This paper resolves these long-standing issues by providing the first worst-case regret analysis of CTS-G, proving an upper bound of $\tilde{O}(m\sqrt{NT})$ and a matching lower bound of $\tildeΩ(m\sqrt{NT})$. To bridge the gap between theory and practice, we further propose CL-SG, a simple CTS-G variant that samples a single shared Gaussian seed each round to coordinate exploration across arms. We show that CL-SG achieves an improved regret bound of $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{mNT})$, together with a matching lower bound $Ω(\sqrt{mNT})$. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that CL-SG consistently outperforms strong baselines including CTS-G and CTS-B, and we open-source our implementation for reproducibility.

We study online multicalibration beyond the worst-case. We give a single, efficient algorithm which dynamically interpolates between benign and worst-case sequences by adaptively refining a dyadic grid of prediction values. Its error is controlled by the number of leaves in the refinement tree. Our analysis recovers the known $\widetilde O(T^{2/3})$ worst-case-optimal rate for online multicalibration, while simultaneously automatically adapting to easier instances: in the marginal stochastic setting it obtains a rate of $\widetilde O(\sqrt T)$, and for piecewise-stationary means with $J$ segments its rate is $\widetilde O(\sqrt{JT})$. More generally, the rate depends on a threshold-complexity measure of the predictable mean process relative to the group family. We show that this dependence is tight up to logarithmic factors.

Causal inference, especially in observational studies, relies on untestable assumptions about the true data-generating process. Sensitivity analysis helps us determine how robust our conclusions are when we alter these underlying assumptions. Existing frameworks for sensitivity analysis are concerned with worst-case changes in assumptions. In this work, we argue that using such pessimistic criteria can often become uninformative or lead to conclusions contradicting our prior knowledge about the world. To demonstrate this claim, we generalize the recent s-value framework (Gupta & Rothenhäusler, 2023) to estimate the sensitivity of three different common assumptions in causal inference. Empirically, we find that, indeed, worst-case conclusions about sensitivity can rely on unrealistic changes in the data-generating process. To overcome this, we extend the s-value framework with a new sensitivity analysis criterion: Bayesian Sensitivity Value (BSV), which computes the expected sensitivity of an estimate to assumption violations under priors constructed from real-world evidence. We use Monte Carlo approximations to estimate this quantity and illustrate its applicability in an observational study on the effect of diabetes treatments on weight loss.

RL-based controllers achieve strong average-case performance in networking tasks such as congestion control and adaptive bitrate streaming. Yet their performance can degrade severely under network conditions where strong performance is still achievable. Identifying such conditions and quantifying the resulting performance gap is intractable by enumeration, while the sequential and closed-loop nature of RL controllers makes formal verification methods impractical. We present ReGuard, a framework that discovers worst-case scenarios for a given RL controller and protects it against them at inference time without retraining. Discovery is formulated as a bilevel regret-maximization problem, which yields a certified lower bound on the worst-case performance gap. The discovered trajectories are then analyzed as counterfactuals and compiled into lightweight logic rules that intervene only when a risky state is detected, leaving the controller's behavior unchanged otherwise. We evaluate ReGuard across three RL-based network controllers: Pensieve, Sage, and Park. ReGuard discovers scenarios in which the controller's performance is 43$-$64% worse than what is achievable. ReGuard not only discovers gaps 57% to 6$\times$ larger than those found by the strongest baselines but also shrinks them by 79$-$85% via lightweight rule-based protection while preserving nominal performance. ReGuard's protection extends beyond the scenarios it discovers, improving performance across a wider range of network conditions.

Q-learning is a fundamental algorithmic primitive in reinforcement learning. This paper develops a new framework for analyzing Q-learning from a switching linear system (SLS) viewpoint. In particular, we derive a stochastic SLS representation of the Q-learning error, and a finite-time error analysis through the joint spectral radius (JSR) of the corresponding SLS model, where the JSR is the exact worst-case exponential rate of the associated SLS. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first convergence rate analysis of standard Q-learning whose leading exponential rate is expressed through the JSR. The resulting rate is tied to the intrinsic worst-case exponential rate of the direct SLS representation and can be sharper than row-sum upper bounds when those bounds are conservative.

Many neural network (NN) verification systems represent the network's input-output relation as a constraint program. Sound and complete, representations involve integer constraints, for simulating the activations. Recent works convexly relax the integer constraints, improving performance, at the cost of soundness. Convex relaxations consider outputs that are unreachable by the original network. We study the worst case divergence between the original network and its convex relaxations; both qualitatively and quantitatively. The relaxations' space forms a lattice, where the top element corresponds to a full relaxation, with every neuron linearized. The bottom element corresponds to the original network. We provide analytical upper and lower bounds for the $\ell_\infty$-distance between the fully relaxed and original outputs. This distance grows exponentially, w.r.t. the network's depth, and linearly w.r.t. the input's radius. The misclassification probability exhibits a step-like behavior, w.r.t. input radius. Our results are supported by experiments on MNIST, Fashion MNIST and random networks.

Many high-stakes AI deployments proceed only if every stakeholder deems the system acceptable relative to their own minimum standard. With randomization over a finite menu of options, this becomes a feasibility question: does there exist a lottery over options that clears all stakeholders' acceptability bars? We study a query model where the algorithm proposes lotteries and receives only binary accept/reject feedback. We give deterministic and randomized algorithms that either find a unanimously acceptable lottery or certify infeasibility; adaptivity can avoid eliciting many stakeholders' constraints, and randomization further reduces the expected elicitation cost relative to full elicitation. We complement these upper bounds with worst-case lower bounds (in particular, linear dependence on the number of stakeholders and logarithmic dependence on precision are unavoidable). Finally, we develop learning-augmented algorithms that exploit natural forms of advice (e.g., likely binding stakeholders or a promising lottery), improving query complexity when predictions are accurate while preserving worst-case guarantees.

Learned action policies are increasingly popular in sequential decision-making, but suffer from a lack of safety guarantees. Recent work introduced a pipeline for testing the safety of such policies under initial-state and action-outcome non-determinism. At the pipeline's core, is the problem of deciding whether a state is safe (a safe policy exists from the state) and finding faults, which are state-action pairs that transition from a safe state to an unsafe one. Their most effective algorithm for deciding safety, TarjanSafe, is effective on their benchmarks, but we show that it has exponential worst-case runtime with respect to the state space. A linear-time alternative exists, but it is slower in practice. We close this gap with a new policy-iteration algorithm iPI, that combines the best of both: it matches TarjanSafe's best-case runtime while guaranteeing a polynomial worst-case. Experiments confirm our theory and show that in problems amenable to TarjanSafe iPI has similar performance, whereas in ill-suited problems iPI scales exponentially better.

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.