Zero-shot multi-label recognition (MLR) with Vision-Language Models (VLMs) faces significant challenges without training data, model tuning, or architectural modifications. Existing approaches require prompt tuning or architectural adaptations, limiting zero-shot applicability. Our work proposes a novel solution treating VLMs as black boxes, leveraging scores without training data or ground truth. We make two contributions. First, we find that VLM scores suffer from image- and prompt-specific biases, and that simple standardization is surprisingly effective at removing these and boosting MLR performance. And second, we introduce compound prompts grounded in realistic object combinations. Our analysis reveals "AND"/"OR" signal ambiguities that cause maximum compound scores to be surprisingly suboptimal compared to second-highest scores. We introduce an adaptive fusion method to address this issue. Our method enhances other zero-shot approaches, consistently improving their results. Experiments show superior mean Average Precision (mAP) compared to methods requiring training data, achieved through refined object ranking for robust zero-shot MLR. Code can be found at https://github.com/kjmillerCURIS/SPARC.

We study the ’feasible action search’ (FAS) problem for linear bandits, wherein a learner attempts to discover a feasible point for a set of linear constraints $\Phi_* a \ge 0,$ without knowledge of the matrix $\Phi_* \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$. A FAS learner selects a sequence of actions $a_t,$ and uses observations of the form $\Phi_* a_t + \mathrm{noise}$ to either find a point with nearly optimal ’safety margin’, or detect that the constraints are infeasible, where the safety margin of an action measures its (signed) distance from the constraint boundary. While of interest in its own right, the FAS problem also directly addresses a key deficiency in the extant theory of ’safe linear bandits’ (SLBs), by discovering a safe initialisation for low-regret SLB methods. We propose and analyse a novel efficient FAS-learner. Our method, FAST, is based on Thompson Sampling. It applies a coupled random perturbation to an estimate of $\Phi_*,$ and plays a maximin point of a game induced by this perturbed matrix. We prove that FAST stops in $\tilde{O}(d^3/\varepsilon^2 M_*^2)$ steps, and incurs $\tilde{O}(d^3/|M_*|)$ safety costs, to either correctly detect infeasibility, or output a point that is at least $(1-\varepsilon) M_*$-safe, where $M_*$ is the optimal safety margin of $\Phi_*$. Further, instantiating prior SLB methods with the output of FAS yields the first SLB methods that incur $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{d^3 T/M_*^2})$ regret and $O(1)$ risk without a priori knowledge of a safe action. The main technical novelty lies in the extension of Thompson Sampling to this multiobjective setting, for which we both propose a coupled noise design, and provide an analysis that avoids convexity considerations.

We study safe linear bandits (SLBs), where an agent selects actions from a convex set to maximize an unknown linear objective subject to unknown linear constraints in each round. Existing methods for SLBs provide strong regret guarantees, but require solving expensive optimization problems (e.g., second-order cones, NP hard programs). To address this, we propose Constrained Linear Thompson Sampling (COLTS), a sampling-based framework that selects actions by solving perturbed linear programs, which significantly reduces computational costs while matching the regret and risk of prior methods. We develop two main variants: S-COLTS, which ensures zero risk and ${\tilde{O}(\sqrt{d^3 T})}$ regret given a safe action, and R-COLTS, which achieves ${\tilde{O}(\sqrt{d^3 T})}$ regret and risk with no instance information. In simulations, these methods match or outperform state of the art SLB approaches while substantially improving scalability. On the technical front, we introduce a novel coupled noise design that ensures frequent 'local optimism' about the true optimum, and a scaling-based analysis to handle the per-round variability of constraints.

A transformer is merely a stack of learned data–to–data maps—yet those maps can hide rich algorithms. We train a linear, attention-only transformer on millions of masked-block completion tasks: each prompt is a masked low-rank matrix whose missing block may be (i) a scalar prediction target or (ii) an unseen kernel slice for Nyström extrapolation. The model sees only input–output pairs and a mean-squared loss; it is given no normal equations, no handcrafted iterations, and no hint that the tasks are related. Surprisingly, after training, algebraic unrolling reveals the same parameter-free update rule across all three resource regimes (full visibility, bandwidth-limited heads, rank-limited attention). We prove that this rule achieves second-order convergence on full-batch problems, cuts distributed iteration complexity, and remains accurate with compute-limited attention. Thus, a transformer trained solely to patch missing blocks implicitly discovers a unified, resource-adaptive iterative solver spanning prediction, estimation, and Nyström extrapolation—highlighting a powerful capability of in-context learning.

The safe linear bandit problem (SLB) is an online approach to linear programming with unknown objective and unknown \emph{roundwise} constraints, under stochastic bandit feedback of rewards and safety risks of actions. We study the tradeoffs between efficacy and smooth safety costs of SLBs over polytopes, and the role of aggressive {doubly-optimistic play} in avoiding the strong assumptions made by extant pessimistic-optimistic approaches. We first elucidate an inherent hardness in SLBs due the lack of knowledge of constraints: there exist ‘easy’ instances, for which suboptimal extreme points have large ‘gaps’, but on which SLB methods must still incur $\Omega(\sqrt{T})$ regret or safety violations, due to an inability to resolve unknown optima to arbitrary precision. We then analyse a natural doubly-optimistic strategy for the safe linear bandit problem, \textsc{doss}, which uses optimistic estimates of both reward and safety risks to select actions, and show that despite the lack of knowledge of constraints or feasible points, \textsc{doss} simultaneously obtains tight instance-dependent $O(\log^2 T)$ bounds on efficacy regret, and $\widetilde O(\sqrt{T})$ bounds on safety violations, thus attaining near Pareto-optimality. Further, when safety is demanded to a finite precision, violations improve to $O(\log^2 T).$ These results rely on a novel dual analysis of linear bandits: we argue that \textsc{doss} proceeds by activating noisy versions of at least $d$ constraints in each round, which allows us to separately analyse rounds where a ‘poor’ set of constraints is activated, and rounds where ‘good’ sets of constraints are activated. The costs in the former are controlled to $O(\log^2 T)$ by developing new dual notions of gaps, based on global sensitivity analyses of linear programs, that quantify the suboptimality of each such set of constraints. The latter costs are controlled to $O(1)$ by explicitly analysing the solutions of optimistic play.

While the recent literature has seen a surge in the study of constrained bandit problems, all existing methods for these begin by assuming the feasibility of the underlying problem. We initiate the study of testing such feasibility assumptions, and in particular address the problem in the linear bandit setting, thus characterising the costs of feasibility testing for an unknown linear program using bandit feedback. Concretely, we test if $\exists x: Ax \ge 0$ for an unknown $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times d}$, by playing a sequence of actions $x_t\in \mathbb{R}^d$, and observing $Ax_t + \mathrm{noise}$ in response. By identifying the hypothesis as determining the sign of the value of a minimax game, we construct a novel test based on low-regret algorithms and a nonasymptotic law of iterated logarithms. We prove that this test is reliable, and adapts to the `signal level,' $\Gamma,$ of any instance, with mean sample costs scaling as $\widetilde{O}(d^2/\Gamma^2)$. We complement this by a minimax lower bound of $\Omega(d/\Gamma^2)$ for sample costs of reliable tests, dominating prior asymptotic lower bounds by capturing the dependence on $d$, and thus elucidating a basic insight missing in the extant literature on such problems.

We establish a new theoretical framework for learning under multi-class, instance-dependent label noise. This framework casts learning with label noise as a form of domain adaptation, in particular, domain adaptation under posterior drift. We introduce the concept of \emph{relative signal strength} (RSS), a pointwise measure that quantifies the transferability from noisy to clean posterior. Using RSS, we establish nearly matching upper and lower bounds on the excess risk. Our theoretical findings support the simple \emph{Noise Ignorant Empirical Risk Minimization (NI-ERM)} principle, which minimizes empirical risk while ignoring label noise. Finally, we translate this theoretical insight into practice: by using NI-ERM to fit a linear classifier on top of a self-supervised feature extractor, we achieve state-of-the-art performance on the CIFAR-N data challenge.

Abstaining classifiers have the option to abstain from making predictions on inputs that they are unsure about. These classifiers are becoming increasingly popular in high-stakes decision-making problems, as they can withhold uncertain predictions to improve their reliability and safety. When evaluating black-box abstaining classifier(s), however, we lack a principled approach that accounts for what the classifier would have predicted on its abstentions. These missing predictions matter when they can eventually be utilized, either directly or as a backup option in a failure mode. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach and perspective to the problem of evaluating and comparing abstaining classifiers by treating abstentions as missing data. Our evaluation approach is centered around defining the counterfactual score of an abstaining classifier, defined as the expected performance of the classifier had it not been allowed to abstain. We specify the conditions under which the counterfactual score is identifiable: if the abstentions are stochastic, and if the evaluation data is independent of the training data (ensuring that the predictions are missing at random), then the score is identifiable. Note that, if abstentions are deterministic, then the score is unidentifiable because the classifier can perform arbitrarily poorly on its abstentions. Leveraging tools from observational causal inference, we then develop nonparametric and doubly robust methods to efficiently estimate this quantity under identification. Our approach is examined in both simulated and real data experiments.

We investigate a natural but surprisingly unstudied approach to the multi-armed bandit problem under safety risk constraints. Each arm is associated with an unknown law on safety risks and rewards, and the learner’s goal is to maximise reward whilst not playing unsafe arms, as determined by a given threshold on the mean risk. We formulate a pseudo-regret for this setting that enforces this safety constraint in a per-round way by softly penalising any violation, regardless of the gain in reward due to the same. This has practical relevance to scenarios such as clinical trials, where one must maintain safety for each round rather than in an aggregated sense. We describe doubly optimistic strategies for this scenario, which maintain optimistic indices for both safety risk and reward. We show that schema based on both frequentist and Bayesian indices satisfy tight gap-dependent logarithmic regret bounds, and further that these play unsafe arms only logarithmically many times in total. This theoretical analysis is complemented by simulation studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed schema, and probing the domains in which their use is appropriate.

We propose a novel method for selective classification (SC), a problem which allows a classifier to abstain from predicting some instances, thus trading off accuracy against coverage (the fraction of instances predicted). In contrast to prior gating or confidence-set based work, our proposed method optimises a collection of class-wise decoupled one-sided empirical risks, and is in essence a method for explicitly finding the largest decision sets for each class that have few false positives. This one-sided prediction (OSP) based relaxation yields an SC scheme that attains near-optimal coverage in the practically relevant high target accuracy regime, and further admits efficient implementation, leading to a flexible and principled method for SC. We theoretically derive generalization bounds for SC and OSP, and empirically we show that our scheme strongly outperforms state of the art methods in coverage at small error levels.

Motivated by applications to resource-limited and safety-critical domains, we study selective classification in the online learning model, wherein a predictor may abstain from classifying an instance. For example, this may model an adaptive decision to invoke more resources on this instance. Two salient aspects of the setting we consider are that the data may be non-realisable, due to which abstention may be a valid long-term action, and that feedback is only received when the learner abstains, which models the fact that reliable labels are only available when the resource intensive processing is invoked.Within this framework, we explore strategies that make few mistakes, while not abstaining too many times more than the best-in-hindsight error-free classifier from a given class. That is, the one that makes no mistakes, while abstaining the fewest number of times. We construct simple versioning-based schemes for any $\mu \in (0,1],$ that make most $T^\mu$ mistakes while incurring $\tilde{O}(T^{1-\mu})$ excess abstention against adaptive adversaries. We further show that this dependence on $T$ is tight, and provide illustrative experiments on realistic datasets.

Conventional machine learning applications in the mobile/IoT setting transmit data to a cloud-server for predictions. Due to cost considerations (power, latency, monetary), it is desirable to minimise device-to-server transmissions. The budget learning (BL) problem poses the learner’s goal as minimising use of the cloud while suffering no discernible loss in accuracy, under the constraint that the methods employed be edge-implementable. We propose a new formulation for the BL problem via the concept of bracketings. Concretely, we propose to sandwich the cloud’s prediction, $g,$ via functions $h^-, h^+$ from a ‘simple’ class so that $h^- \le g \le h^+$ nearly always. On an instance $x$, if $h^+(x)=h^-(x)$, we leverage local processing, and bypass the cloud. We explore theoretical aspects of this formulation, providing PAC-style learnability definitions; associating the notion of budget learnability to approximability via brackets; and giving VC-theoretic analyses of their properties. We empirically validate our theory on real-world datasets, demonstrating improved performance over prior gating based methods.

We present a new piecewise linear regression methodology that utilises fitting a \emph{difference of convex} functions (DC functions) to the data. These are functions $f$ that may be represented as the difference $\phi_1 - \phi_2$ for a choice of \emph{convex} functions $\phi_1, \phi_2$. The method proceeds by estimating piecewise-liner convex functions, in a manner similar to max-affine regression, whose difference approximates the data. The choice of the function is regularised by a new seminorm over the class of DC functions that controls the $\ell_\infty$ Lipschitz constant of the estimate. The resulting methodology can be efficiently implemented via Quadratic programming \emph{even in high dimensions}, and is shown to have close to minimax statistical risk. We empirically validate the method, showing it to be practically implementable, and to outperform existing regression methods in accuracy on real-world datasets.

We present novel information-theoretic limits on detecting sparse changes in Isingmodels, a problem that arises in many applications where network changes canoccur due to some external stimuli. We show that the sample complexity fordetecting sparse changes, in a minimax sense, is no better than learning the entiremodel even in settings with local sparsity. This is a surprising fact in light of priorwork rooted in sparse recovery methods, which suggest that sample complexityin this context scales only with the number of network changes. To shed light onwhen change detection is easier than structured learning, we consider testing ofedge deletion in forest-structured graphs, and high-temperature ferromagnets ascase studies. We show for these that testing of small changes is similarly hard, buttesting oflargechanges is well-separated from structure learning. These resultsimply that testing of graphical models may not be amenable to concepts such asrestricted strong convexity leveraged for sparsity pattern recovery, and algorithmdevelopment instead should be directed towards detection of large changes.

We propose and analyze the problems of \textit{community goodness-of-fit and two-sample testing} for stochastic block models (SBM), where changes arise due to modification in community memberships of nodes. Motivated by practical applications, we consider the challenging sparse regime, where expected node degrees are constant, and the inter-community mean degree ($b$) scales proportionally to intra-community mean degree ($a$). Prior work has sharply characterized partial or full community recovery in terms of a ``signal-to-noise ratio'' ($\mathrm{SNR}$) based on $a$ and $b$. For both problems, we propose computationally-efficient tests that can succeed far beyond the regime where recovery of community membership is even possible. Overall, for large changes, $s \gg \sqrt{n}$, we need only $\mathrm{SNR}= O(1)$ whereas a na\"ive test based on community recovery with $O(s)$ errors requires $\mathrm{SNR}= \Theta(\log n)$. Conversely, in the small change regime, $s \ll \sqrt{n}$, via an information theoretic lower bound, we show that, surprisingly, no algorithm can do better than the na\"ive algorithm that first estimates the community up to $O(s)$ errors and then detects changes. We validate these phenomena numerically on SBMs and on real-world datasets as well as Markov Random Fields where we only observe node data rather than the existence of links.

Consider the following structural two-sample testing problem: given two sets of sample drawn from Ising models, determine whether the underlying network structure has changed. In [1], we showed that for Ising models over p variables with network structures that have degree bounded by d, under mild conditions on the model parameters, the sample complexity of this problem is very close to that of determining either of the network structures. Therefore, the naive scheme of learning and then comparing the structures of both sets of samples is near data-optimal. However, the minimax lower bounds in [1] relied on Ising models that differed in only one edge, which leads to the natural follow-up question: are large changes significantly easier to detect? We extend the previously developed framework to consider this problem, and show that, in a certain parameter regime, large changes do not provide any significant improvement in the number of necessary samples for reliable two-sample testing.