This paper presents a comprehensive theoretical analysis of the learnability of neuro-symbolic (NeSy) tasks within hybrid systems. We characterize the learnability of NeSy tasks by their derived constraint satisfaction problems (DCSPs), demonstrating that a task is learnable if and only if its corresponding DCSP admits a unique solution. Under mild assumptions, we establish the sample complexity for learnable tasks and show that, for general tasks, the asymptotic expected concept error is controlled by the degree of disagreement among DCSP solutions. Our findings unify the characterization of learnability and the phenomenon of reasoning shortcuts, providing theoretical guarantees and actionable guidance for the principled design of NeSy systems.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback usually models preferences using a reward function that does not distinguish between people. We argue that this is unlikely to be a good design choice in contexts with high potential for disagreement, like in the training of large language models. We formalise and analyse the problem of learning a reward model that can be specialised to a user. Using the principle of empirical risk minimisation, we derive a probably approximately correct (PAC) bound showing the dependency of the approximation error on the number of training examples, as usual, and also on the number of human raters who provided feedback on them. Based on our theoretical findings, we discuss how to best collect pairwise preference data and argue that adaptive reward models should be beneficial when there is considerable disagreement among users.

Farage says Reform has contacted X'to highest level' over fake AI ads Reform leader Nigel Farage has called on X to act over a series of fake, AI-generated adverts which depict him fighting Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey. The ads - showing the Reform leader and Bank of England governor in a number of fake scenarios, on a set resembling BBC Question Time - have been repeatedly shown to X users in the UK in recent days. Farage told reporters on Tuesday that Reform UK contacted X on Monday to the highest level - adding he hoped it would take action to remove the ads incredibly quickly. The BBC has approached X for comment. It comes after the Bank of England also urged X users to report the ads, where seen.

Two of the most widely used methods for analysing graph data, Adjacency Spectral Embedding and Laplacian Spectral Embedding, often produce different results when applied to the same network. Yet the structural reasons behind this disagreement remain incompletely understood. This paper provides a structural account. We show that regularity is a sufficient condition for perfect agreement: when every node has the same number of connections, the two methods produce identical latent subspaces. Any departure from this regularity introduces disagreement, and we prove an explicit bound whose two terms suggest the structural ingredients controlling it: degree heterogeneity, which pushes the methods apart, and community structure strength, which pulls them back together. We validate both drivers empirically across thousands of simulated networks, confirming that heterogeneity drives disagreement up, community strength suppresses it, and their ratio provides a strong predictor of when the two embeddings can be treated as interchangeable and when they cannot.

Active learning for continuous regression has lacked an acquisition function that targets epistemic uncertainty when the predictive distribution is multimodal: variance misses modal disagreement, and information-theoretic targets like BALD are designed for discrete outputs. We introduce a Two-Index framework that makes this separation explicit: one stochastic index selects among competing model hypotheses (epistemic source), while a second governs within-hypothesis randomness (aleatoric source). An entropy decomposition within the framework identifies the mutual information between the output and the epistemic index as a principled acquisition objective, and we prove this quantity vanishes as the model is trained on growing datasets, confirming that it captures exactly the uncertainty data can resolve. Because this mutual information is intractable for continuous outputs, we derive the Mutual Information Lower Bound (MI-LB) acquisition function, a closed-form approximation for Mixture Density Network ensembles. On benchmarks featuring multimodal systems, MI-LB matches or beats every baseline evaluated and is the only method to do so consistently -- geometric and Fisher-based baselines compete only when the input space already encodes the multimodality, and collapse otherwise.

Supervised machine learning assumes that labeled data provide accurate measurements of the concepts models are meant to learn. Yet in practice, human labeling introduces systematic variation arising from ambiguous items, divergent interpretations, and simple mistakes. Machine learning research commonly treats all disagreement as noise, which obscures these distinctions and limits our understanding of what models actually learn. This paper reframes annotation as a measurement process and introduces a statistical framework for decomposing labeling outcomes into interpretable sources of variation: instance difficulty, annotator bias, situational noise, and relational alignment. The framework extends classical measurement-error models to accommodate both shared and individualized notions of truth, reflecting traditional and human label variation interpretations of error, and provides a diagnostic for assessing which regime better characterizes a given task. Applying the proposed model to a multi-annotator natural language inference dataset, we find empirical evidence for all four theorized components and demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. We conclude with implications for data-centric machine learning and outline how this approach can guide the development of a more systematic science of labeling.

Active learning reduces labeling costs by selecting samples that maximize information gain. A dominant framework, Query-by-Committee (QBC), typically relies on perturbation-based diversity by inducing model disagreement through random feature subsetting or data blinding. While this approximates one notion of epistemic uncertainty, it sacrifices direct characterization of the plausible hypothesis space. We propose the complementary approach: Rashomon Ensembled Active Learning (REAL) which constructs a committee by exhaustively enumerating the Rashomon Set of all near-optimal models. To address functional redundancy within this set, we adopt a PAC-Bayesian framework using a Gibbs posterior to weight committee members by their empirical risk. Leveraging recent algorithmic advances, we exactly enumerate this set for the class of sparse decision trees. Across synthetic and established active learning baselines, REAL outperforms randomized ensembles, particularly in moderately noisy environments where it strategically leverages expanded model multiplicity to achieve faster convergence.

We consider the assortment optimization problem when customer preferences follow a mixture of Mallows distributions. The assortment optimization problem focuses on determining the revenue/profit maximizing subset of products from a large universe of products; it is an important decision that is commonly faced by retailers in determining what to offer their customers. There are two key challenges: (a) the Mallows distribution lacks a closed-form expression (and requires summing an exponential number of terms) to compute the choice probability and, hence, the expected revenue/profit per customer; and (b) finding the best subset may require an exhaustive search. Our key contributions are an efficiently computable closed-form expression for the choice probability under the Mallows model and a compact mixed integer linear program (MIP) formulation for the assortment problem.

As performance gains through scaling data and/or model size experience diminishing returns, it is becoming increasingly popular to turn to ensembling, where the predictions of multiple models are combined to improve accuracy. In this paper, we provide a detailed analysis of how the disagreement and the polarization (a notion we introduce and define in this paper) among classifiers relate to the performance gain achieved by aggregating individual classifiers, for majority vote strategies in classification tasks.We address these questions in the following ways.