The Distributional Alignment Game framework provides a powerful variational perspective on Answer-Level Fine-Tuning (ALFT). However, standard algorithms for these games rely on estimating logarithmic rewards from small batches, introducing a systematic bias due to Jensen's inequality that can destabilize training. In this paper, we systematically resolve this structural estimation bias. First, we generalize the alignment game to arbitrary Bregman divergences, showing that for a family of geometries inducing polynomial rewards, we can construct provably exact and unbiased estimators using U-statistics. Second, for the canonical KL divergence game where an exact solution is impossible, we derive a globally robust minimax polynomial estimator that is provably optimal, achieving the fundamental statistical error limit of $Θ(1/K^2)$, which we establish via the Ditzian-Totik theorem. Finally, we synthesize these two approaches to propose a novel Variance-Optimal Augmented Polynomial Optimization Program (AQP) Estimator, proving that by systematically reducing variance, our method achieves not only optimal bias but also provably accelerated game convergence, leading to more efficient and stable training with zero online computational overhead.

While the expected calibration error (ECE), which employs binning, is widely adopted to evaluate the calibration performance of machine learning models, theoretical understanding of its estimation bias is limited. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive analysis of the estimation bias in the two common binning strategies, uniform mass and uniform width binning.Our analysis establishes upper bounds on the bias, achieving an improved convergence rate. Moreover, our bounds reveal, for the first time, the optimal number of bins to minimize the estimation bias. We further extend our bias analysis to generalization error analysis based on the information-theoretic approach, deriving upper bounds that enable the numerical evaluation of how small the ECE is for unknown data. Experiments using deep learning models show that our bounds are nonvacuous thanks to this information-theoretic generalization analysis approach.

Global feature effects such as partial dependence (PD) and accumulated local effects (ALE) plots are widely used to interpret black-box models. However, they are only estimates of true underlying effects, and their reliability depends on multiple sources of error. Despite the popularity of global feature effects, these error sources are largely unexplored. In particular, the practically relevant question of whether to use training or holdout data to estimate feature effects remains unanswered. We address this gap by providing a systematic, estimator-level analysis that disentangles sources of bias and variance for PD and ALE. To this end, we derive a mean-squared-error decomposition that separates model bias, estimation bias, model variance, and estimation variance, and analyze their dependence on model characteristics, data selection, and sample size. We validate our theoretical findings through an extensive simulation study across multiple data-generating processes, learners, estimation strategies (training data, validation data, and cross-validation), and sample sizes. Our results reveal that, while using holdout data is theoretically the cleanest, potential biases arising from the training data are empirically negligible and dominated by the impact of the usually higher sample size. The estimation variance depends on both the presence of interactions and the sample size, with ALE being particularly sensitive to the latter. Cross-validation-based estimation is a promising approach that reduces the model variance component, particularly for overfitting models. Our analysis provides a principled explanation of the sources of error in feature effect estimates and offers concrete guidance on choosing estimation strategies when interpreting machine learning models.

Existing defenses attempt to bolster the resilience of GNNs using diverse approaches.

Y es, the total complexity is proportional to the number of aggregated tasks. Add experiments to compare ANIL and MAML and w.r .t. the size B of samples: Why sample size in inner-loop is not taken into analysis, as Fallah et al. [4] does: This setting has also been considered in Rajeswaran et al. [24], Ji et al. [13]. Reviewer 2: Dependence on κ. iMAML depends on κ in contrast to poly (κ) of this work: Add an experiment to verify the tightness: Great point! W e will definitely add such an experiment in the revision. W e will clarify it in the revision.