The paper shows that Worst‑Case Optimal Recovery (OR) and Bayesian learning solve the same Gaussian‑quadratic‑Hilbert problems, linking the radius of information to a nugget‑optimized Gaussian process posterior variance. It evaluates three Bayesian systems, demonstrating that OR can outperform Bayesian methods in certain calibration and reproducibility metrics, yet split‑conformal and other approaches can beat OR in interval scoring, especially under covariate shift. The authors propose matching the guarantee tool to the data regime and auditing that regime first.
arXiv:2608. 08826v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Adaptive procedures must work without nuisance information an oracle may use, such as a gradient scale or smoothness index, and robust procedures may have to answer queries whose coordinate and inspection time are chosen only after the data are seen.
arXiv:2606. 16341v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A filtered approximate-nearest-neighbor (ANN) query returns the k nearest vectors among those satisfying an attribute predicate P of selectivity s.
arXiv:2605. 23434v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Approximate inference over inducing variables is the central computational bottleneck of Deep Gaussian Processes (DGPs).
arXiv:2608. 06762v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Bisimulation metrics quantify behavioral similarity in Markov decision processes, but their Wasserstein fixed-point operator updates every state pair and incurs quadratic pairwise work.
The paper introduces a two-player zero-sum repeated game between a learner and nature that simultaneously captures Bayesian updating and an exact decomposition of exponential-weights regret. The game’s terminal payoff reflects the maximum gain a comparator can achieve given a fixed relative entropy from the prior, while the one-step constraint limits nature’s move by an information budget. The resulting regret splits into three precise components—per-round information loss, an additive retempering drift, and the comparator’s information relative to the prior—providing a unified framework that explains concentration phenomena, large-deviation bounds, and various learning methods such as bandits, posterior sampling, aggregation, and boosting.
arXiv:2608. 10441v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Many pipelines can pay a per-example cost to acquire an auxiliary, model-derived observation -- an LLM's structured reasoning, a slow oracle, an expensive measurement -- and then must decide when the acquired signal is worth using.
arXiv:2607. 11920v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating decisions made under uncertainty is hard when labeled outcomes are scarce, costly, or confounded with luck.
arXiv:2608. 13087v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Neural combinatorial optimization (NCO) solvers report the best of many sampled solutions per instance, and the sample count is, by convention, identical for every instance.
arXiv:2608. 15810v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Runtime compression of serving state trades quality for capacity with no priced guarantee: systems adapt precision on load signals with no soundness statement, and certified approaches budget request-level risk by a union bound over a pre-declared event count.
Runtime compression of serving state trades quality for capacity with no priced guarantee: systems adapt precision on load signals with no soundness statement, and certified approaches budget request-...
arXiv:2606. 15600v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Cardinality-estimation (CE) research ranks estimators by q-error, yet it is well known that q-error is an imperfect proxy for query-plan quality.
arXiv:2606. 25170v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We study PAC learning in tabular discounted Markov decision processes with exogenous i.