Satisfiability (SAT) solvers based on techniques such as conflict driven clause learning (CDCL) have produced excellent performance on both synthetic and real world industrial problems. While these CDCL solvers only operate on a per-problem basis, graph neural network (GNN) based solvers bring new benefits to the field by allowing practitioners to exploit knowledge gained from solved problems to expedite solving of new SAT problems. However, one specific area that is often studied in the context of CDCL solvers, but largely overlooked in GNN solvers, is the relationship between graph theoretic measure of structure in SAT problems and the generalisation ability of GNN solvers. To bridge the gap between structural graph properties (e.g., modularity, self-similarity) and the generalisability (or lack thereof) of GNN based SAT solvers, we present StructureSAT: a curated dataset, along with code to further generate novel examples, containing a diverse set of SAT problems from well known problem domains. Furthermore, we utilise a novel splitting method that focuses on deconstructing the families into more detailed hierarchies based on their structural properties. With the new dataset, we aim to help explain problematic generalisation in existing GNN SAT solvers by exploiting knowledge of structural graph properties. We conclude with multiple future directions that can help researchers in GNN based SAT solving develop more effective and generalisable SAT solvers.

In order to develop practical and efficient algorithms while circumventing overly pessimistic computational lower bounds, recent work has been interested in developing oracle-efficient algorithms in a variety of learning settings. Two such settings of particular interest are online and differentially private learning. While seemingly different, these two fields are fundamentally connected by the requirement that successful algorithms in each case satisfy stability guarantees; in particular, recent work has demonstrated that algorithms for online learning whose performance adapts to beneficial problem instances, attaining the so-called small-loss bounds, require a form of stability similar to that of differential privacy. In this work, we identify the crucial role that separation plays in allowing oracle-efficient algorithms to achieve this strong stability. Our notion, which we term $\rho$-separation, generalizes and unifies several previous approaches to enforcing this strong stability, including the existence of small-separator sets and the recent notion of $\gamma$-approximability. We present an oracle-efficient algorithm that is capable of achieving small-loss bounds with improved rates in greater generality than previous work, as well as a variant for differentially private learning that attains optimal rates, again under our separation condition. In so doing, we prove a new stability result for minimizers of a Gaussian process that strengthens and generalizes previous work.

Binary classification in the classic PAC model exhibits a curious phenomenon: Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) learners are suboptimal in the realizable case yet optimal in the agnostic case. Roughly speaking, this owes itself to the fact that non-realizable distributions $\mathcal{D}$ are simply more difficult to learn than realizable distributions -- even when one discounts a learner's error by $\mathrm{err}(h^*_{\mathcal{D}})$, the error of the best hypothesis in $\mathcal{H}$ for $\mathcal{D}$. Thus, optimal agnostic learners are permitted to incur excess error on (easier-to-learn) distributions $\mathcal{D}$ for which $\tau = \mathrm{err}(h^*_{\mathcal{D}})$ is small. Recent work of Hanneke, Larsen, and Zhivotovskiy (FOCS `24) addresses this shortcoming by including $\tau$ itself as a parameter in the agnostic error term. In this more fine-grained model, they demonstrate tightness of the error lower bound $\tau + \Omega \left(\sqrt{\frac{\tau (d + \log(1 / \delta))}{m}} + \frac{d + \log(1 / \delta)}{m} \right)$ in a regime where $\tau > d/m$, and leave open the question of whether there may be a higher lower bound when $\tau \approx d/m$, with $d$ denoting $\mathrm{VC}(\mathcal{H})$. In this work, we resolve this question by exhibiting a learner which achieves error $c \cdot \tau + O \left(\sqrt{\frac{\tau (d + \log(1 / \delta))}{m}} + \frac{d + \log(1 / \delta)}{m} \right)$ for a constant $c \leq 2.1$, thus matching the lower bound when $\tau \approx d/m$. Further, our learner is computationally efficient and is based upon careful aggregations of ERM classifiers, making progress on two other questions of Hanneke, Larsen, and Zhivotovskiy (FOCS `24). We leave open the interesting question of whether our approach can be refined to lower the constant from 2.1 to 1, which would completely settle the complexity of agnostic learning.

Stability is a central property in learning and statistics promising the output of an algorithm $A$ does not change substantially when applied to similar datasets $S$ and $S'$. It is an elementary fact that any sufficiently stable algorithm (e.g.\ one returning the same result with high probability, satisfying privacy guarantees, etc.) must be randomized. This raises a natural question: can we quantify how much randomness is needed for algorithmic stability? We study the randomness complexity of two influential notions of stability in learning: replicability, which promises $A$ usually outputs the same result when run over samples from the same distribution (and shared random coins), and differential privacy, which promises the output distribution of $A$ remains similar under neighboring datasets. The randomness complexity of these notions was studied recently in (Dixon et al. ICML 2024) and (Cannone et al. ITCS 2024) for basic $d$-dimensional tasks (e.g. estimating the bias of $d$ coins), but little is known about the measures more generally or in complex settings like classification. Toward this end, we prove a `weak-to-strong' boosting theorem for stability: the randomness complexity of a task $M$ (either under replicability or DP) is tightly controlled by the best replication probability of any deterministic algorithm solving the task, a weak measure called `global stability' that is universally capped at $\frac{1}{2}$ (Chase et al. FOCS 2023). Using this, we characterize the randomness complexity of PAC Learning: a class has bounded randomness complexity iff it has finite Littlestone dimension, and moreover scales at worst logarithmically in the excess error of the learner. This resolves a question of (Chase et al. STOC 2024) who asked for such a characterization in the equivalent language of (error-dependent) `list-replicability'.

Adversarially robust PAC learning has proved to be challenging, with the currently best known learners [Montasser et al., 2021a] relying on improper methods based on intricate compression schemes, resulting in sample complexity exponential in the VC-dimension. A series of follow up work considered a slightly relaxed version of the problem called adversarially robust learning with tolerance [Ashtiani et al., 2023, Bhattacharjee et al., 2023, Raman et al., 2024] and achieved better sample complexity in terms of the VC-dimension. However, those algorithms were either improper and complex, or required additional assumptions on the hypothesis class H. We prove, for the first time, the existence of a simpler learner that achieves a sample complexity linear in the VC-dimension without requiring additional assumptions on H. Even though our learner is improper, it is "almost proper" in the sense that it outputs a hypothesis that is "similar" to a hypothesis in H. We also use the ideas from our algorithm to construct a semi-supervised learner in the tolerant setting. This simple algorithm achieves comparable bounds to the previous (non-tolerant) semi-supervised algorithm of Attias et al. [2022a], but avoids the use of intricate subroutines from previous works, and is "almost proper."

We partly resolve an open question raised by Asilis et al. (COLT 2024): whether the algorithmic template of local regularization -- an intriguing generalization of explicit regularization, a.k.a. structural risk minimization -- suffices to learn all learnable multiclass problems. Specifically, we provide a negative answer to this question in the transductive model of learning. We exhibit a multiclass classification problem which is learnable in both the transductive and PAC models, yet cannot be learned transductively by any local regularizer. The corresponding hypothesis class, and our proof, are based on principles from cryptographic secret sharing. We outline challenges in extending our negative result to the PAC model, leaving open the tantalizing possibility of a PAC/transductive separation with respect to local regularization.

We study the problem of computable multiclass learnability within the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) learning framework of Valiant (1984). In the recently introduced computable PAC (CPAC) learning framework of Agarwal et al. (2020), both learners and the functions they output are required to be computable. We focus on the case of finite label space and start by proposing a computable version of the Natarajan dimension and showing that it characterizes CPAC learnability in this setting. We further generalize this result by establishing a meta-characterization of CPAC learnability for a certain family of dimensions: computable distinguishers. Distinguishers were defined by Ben-David et al. (1992) as a certain family of embeddings of the label space, with each embedding giving rise to a dimension. It was shown that the finiteness of each such dimension characterizes multiclass PAC learnability for finite label space in the non-computable setting. We show that the corresponding computable dimensions for distinguishers characterize CPAC learning. We conclude our analysis by proving that the DS dimension, which characterizes PAC learnability for infinite label space, cannot be expressed as a distinguisher (even in the case of finite label space).

Weaknesses: The main claim of the paper is the hypothesis that the noise in the non-greedy objective's paper is the reason why the greedy method can outperform it. However, I think that the empirical methodology is not strong enough to back this claim up, as the experiments are carried out on a single dataset, using a single network architecture and reported with a single performance metric. I think that the hypothesis would be much more clearly substantiated if the noise in the gradients were shown to be a consistent trend in various setting; I am afraid that, in the current state, the conclusion could be an anecdotical performance of the given setting. In addition, if I'm correct, RL models are prone to unstable training and are generally hard to train well. How can you confidently ensure that this behaviour isn't due to the RL policy not being trained for long enough?

Three knowledgeable referees agree that the paper makes a valuable contribution to the MRI acceleration and reconstruction literature. They recognize the soundness of the proposed approach and its compelling experimental validation. I agree with the referees and recommend acceptance.

Recent advances in the binary classification setting by Hanneke [2016b] and Larsen [2023] have resulted in optimal PAC learners. These learners leverage, respectively, a clever deterministic subsampling scheme and the classic heuristic of bagging Breiman [1996]. Both optimal PAC learners use, as a subroutine, the natural algorithm of empirical risk minimization. Consequently, the computational cost of these optimal PAC learners is tied to that of the empirical risk minimizer algorithm. In this work, we seek to provide an alternative perspective on the computational cost imposed by the link to the empirical risk minimizer algorithm. To this end, we show the existence of an optimal PAC learner, which offers a different tradeoff in terms of the computational cost induced by the empirical risk minimizer.