On the Complexity of the Compatibility Problem for Succinctly Encoded Conditional Distributions
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
The paper presents an interactive probabilistically checkable proof (PCP) protocol that allows a polynomial‑time verifier to check the approximate consistency of a probabilistic predictor defined by two circuits, P and Q. By evaluating these circuits at a few points and querying a proof oracle that encodes a witnessing probability distribution, the verifier can confirm that the predictor’s many conditional‑probability claims are self‑consistent. The authors also establish that the problem of verifying l₂‑approximate consistency for explicit probabilistic claims lies in NP, with certificates of size O(mn + log B), and show how to eliminate dependence on the input bit‑precision B through a small additive gap.
arXiv:2608. 16565v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This cumulative habilitation thesis studies probabilistic circuits (PCs) as a powerful and tractable framework for reasoning and learning under uncertainty in artificial intelligence (AI).
arXiv:2608. 11181v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a probabilistic predictor answers many conditional-probability queries, are its answers self-consistent, and can this be verified in polynomial time?
arXiv:2609. 19077v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Formal explainability provides mathematically grounded justifications for individual predictions.
arXiv:2607. 06407v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The XAI community has studied a wide range of queries and scores for explaining predictions of ML models.
arXiv:2603. 25414v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A prevailing assumption in machine learning is that model correctness must be enforced after the fact.