Probabilistic Circuits (PCs) are a promising avenue for probabilistic modeling. They combine advantages of probabilistic graphical models (PGMs) with those of neural networks (NNs). Crucially, however, they are tractable probabilistic models, supporting efficient and exact computation of many probabilistic inference queries, such as marginals and MAP. Further, since PCs are structured computation graphs, they can take advantage of deep-learning-style parameter updates, which greatly improves their scalability. However, this innovation also makes PCs prone to overfitting, which has been observed in many standard benchmarks. Despite the existence of abundant regularization techniques for both PGMs and NNs, they are not effective enough when applied to PCs.

While it has been the subject of several recent theoretical studies, many important questions related to adversarial robustness are still open.

While distributional reinforcement learning (DistRL) has been empirically effective, the question of when and why it is better than vanilla, non-distributional RL has remained unanswered. This paper explains the benefits of DistRL through the lens of small-loss bounds, which are instance-dependent bounds that scale with optimal achievable cost. Particularly, our bounds converge much faster than those from non-distributional approaches if the optimal cost is small. As warmup, we propose a distributional contextual bandit (DistCB) algorithm, which we show enjoys small-loss regret bounds and empirically outperforms the state-of-the-art on three real-world tasks. In online RL, we propose a DistRL algorithm that constructs confidence sets using maximum likelihood estimation. We prove that our algorithm enjoys novel small-loss PAC bounds in low-rank MDPs. As part of our analysis, we introduce the ℓ1 distributional eluder dimension which may be of independent interest. Then, in offline RL, we show that pessimistic DistRL enjoys small-loss PAC bounds that are novel to the offline setting and are more robust to bad single-policy coverage.

In partial multi-label learning (PML), each training example is associated with a set of candidate labels, among which only some labels are valid. As a common strategy to tackle PML problem, disambiguation aims to recover the ground-truth labeling information from such inaccurate annotations. However, existing approaches mainly rely on heuristics or ad-hoc rules to disambiguate candidate labels, which may not be universal enough in complicated real-world scenarios. To provide a principled way for disambiguation, we make a first attempt to explore the probabilistic graphical model for PML problem, where a directed graph is tailored to infer latent ground-truth labeling information from the generative process of partial multi-label data. Under the framework of stochastic gradient variational Bayes, a unified variational lower bound is derived for this graphical model, which is further relaxed probabilistically so that the desired prediction model can be induced with simultaneously identified ground-truth labeling information. Comprehensive experiments on multiple synthetic and real-world data sets show that our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art counterparts.

Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) estimation in practice demands three properties simultaneously: heterogeneous effects τ(x), calibrated uncertainty over them, and robustness to the heavy tails that contaminate real outcome data. Meta-learners (Künzel et al., 2019) give (i); causal forests and BART give (i)-(ii) with Gaussian-tail assumptions; no widely used tool gives all three. We present Bayesian X-Learner, an X-Learner built on cross-fitted doubly robust pseudo-outcomes (Kennedy, 2020) with a full MCMC posterior over τ(x) via a Welsch redescending pseudo-likelihood. On Hill's IHDP benchmark the default configuration attains mean εPEHE = 0.56 on 5 replications (lowest mean; differences from S-/T-/X-learners, full-config Causal BART, and a causal forest baseline are not significant at α = 0.05, and rank ordering is unstable at 10 replications -- IHDP comparisons are competitive rather than dominant). On contaminated "whale" DGPs with up to 20-25% tail density, a one-flag extension (contamination_severity) that selects a Huberδ nuisance loss per Huber's minimax-δ relation recovers RMSE 0.13 with tight credible intervals (single-cross-fit 30-seed coverage 83% [Wilson 66%, 93%] at 20% density; modularBayes pooling with Bayesian-bootstrap nuisance draws restores nominal 95% coverage). We validate on the Hillstrom email-marketing RCT (N = 42,613), demonstrating consistent behaviour on real heavy-tailed outcome data, and report covariate-stratified τ(x) coverage across covariate quintiles to substantiate calibration for heterogeneous effects beyond scalar summaries. We draw a clean distinction between tails-as-contamination (handled by Welsch + Huber nuisance) and tails-as-signal (handled by a tail-aware CATE basis); an empirical probe confirms a tail-aware basis recovers τtail with full subgroup coverage, while the library's Hill-estimator path is contamination-directed and should not be used for heterogeneous τ. We map six empirical boundaries (contamination ceiling, clean-data efficiency cost, basis sensitivity, sample size, treatment type, compute) and show where other tools are preferable. Code and reproducible benchmarks are released.