Christiano et al. (2022) define a *heuristic estimator* to be a hypothetical algorithm that estimates the values of mathematical expressions from arguments. In brief, a heuristic estimator $\mathbb{G}$ takes as input a mathematical expression $Y$ and a formal "heuristic argument" $\pi$, and outputs an estimate $\mathbb{G}(Y \mid \pi)$ of $Y$. In this work, we argue for the informal principle that a heuristic estimator ought not to be able to predict its own errors, and we explore approaches to formalizing this principle. Most simply, the principle suggests that $\mathbb{G}(Y - \mathbb{G}(Y \mid \pi) \mid \pi)$ ought to equal zero for all $Y$ and $\pi$. We argue that an ideal heuristic estimator ought to satisfy two stronger properties in this vein, which we term *iterated estimation* (by analogy to the law of iterated expectations) and *error orthogonality*. Although iterated estimation and error orthogonality are intuitively appealing, it can be difficult to determine whether a given heuristic estimator satisfies the properties. As an alternative approach, we explore *accuracy*: a property that (roughly) states that $\mathbb{G}$ has zero average error over a distribution of mathematical expressions. However, in the context of two estimation problems, we demonstrate barriers to creating an accurate heuristic estimator. We finish by discussing challenges and potential paths forward for finding a heuristic estimator that accords with our intuitive understanding of how such an estimator ought to behave, as well as the potential applications of heuristic estimators to understanding the behavior of neural networks.

One aspect of the algorithmic lens in theoretical computer science is a view on other scientific disciplines that focuses on satisfactory solutions that adhere to real-world constraints, as opposed to solutions that would be optimal ignoring such constraints. The algorithmic lens has provided a unique and important perspective on many academic fields, including molecular biology, ecology, neuroscience, quantum physics, economics, and social science. This thesis applies the algorithmic lens to Bayesian epistemology. Traditional Bayesian epistemology provides a comprehensive framework for how an individual's beliefs should evolve upon receiving new information. However, these methods typically assume an exhaustive model of such information, including the correlation structure between different pieces of evidence. In reality, individuals might lack such an exhaustive model, while still needing to form beliefs. Beyond such informational constraints, an individual may be bounded by limited computation, or by limited communication with agents that have access to information, or by the strategic behavior of such agents. Even when these restrictions prevent the formation of a *perfectly* accurate belief, arriving at a *reasonably* accurate belief remains crucial. In this thesis, we establish fundamental possibility and impossibility results about belief formation under a variety of restrictions, and lay the groundwork for further exploration.

For each of $T$ time steps, $m$ experts report probability distributions over $n$ outcomes; we wish to learn to aggregate these forecasts in a way that attains a no-regret guarantee. We focus on the fundamental and practical aggregation method known as logarithmic pooling -- a weighted average of log odds -- which is in a certain sense the optimal choice of pooling method if one is interested in minimizing log loss (as we take to be our loss function). We consider the problem of learning the best set of parameters (i.e. expert weights) in an online adversarial setting. We assume (by necessity) that the adversarial choices of outcomes and forecasts are consistent, in the sense that experts report calibrated forecasts. Imposing this constraint creates a (to our knowledge) novel semi-adversarial setting in which the adversary retains a large amount of flexibility. In this setting, we present an algorithm based on online mirror descent that learns expert weights in a way that attains $O(\sqrt{T} \log T)$ expected regret as compared with the best weights in hindsight.