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.

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.

We provide new results for noise-tolerant and sample-efficient learning algorithms under $s$-concave distributions. The new class of $s$-concave distributions is a broad and natural generalization of log-concavity, and includes many important additional distributions, e.g., the Pareto distribution and $t$ distribution. This class has been studied in the context of efficient sampling, integration, and optimization, but much remains unknown about the geometry of this class of distributions and their applications in the context of learning. The challenge is that unlike the commonly used distributions in learning (uniform or more generally log-concave distributions), this broader class is not closed under the marginalization operator and many such distributions are fat-tailed. In this work, we introduce new convex geometry tools to study the properties of $s$-concave distributions and use these properties to provide bounds on quantities of interest to learning including the probability of disagreement between two halfspaces, disagreement outside a band, and the disagreement coefficient. We use these results to significantly generalize prior results for margin-based active learning, disagreement-based active learning, and passive learning of intersections of halfspaces. Our analysis of geometric properties of $s$-concave distributions might be of independent interest to optimization more broadly.

We have the following lemma. Using the notation of Lemma A.1, we have E The third inequality uses the Lipschitz assumption of the loss function. Figure 10 supplements'Relation to disagreement ' at the end of Section 2. It shows an example where the behavior of inconsistency is different from disagreement. All the experiments were done using GPUs (A100 or older). The goal of the experiments reported in Section 3.1 was to find whether/how the predictiveness of The arrows indicate the direction of training becoming longer.