Uncertainty estimation plays an important role for future reliable deployment of deep segmentation models in safety-critical scenarios such as medical applications. However, existing methods for uncertainty estimation have been limited by the lack of explicit guidance for calibrating the prediction risk and model confidence. In this work, we propose a novel fine-grained reward maximization (FGRM) framework, to address uncertainty estimation by directly utilizing an uncertainty metric related reward function with a reinforcement learning based model tuning algorithm. This would benefit the model uncertainty estimation through direct optimization guidance for model calibration. Specifically, our method designs a new uncertainty estimation reward function using the calibration metric, which is maximized to fine-tune an evidential learning pre-trained segmentation model for calibrating prediction risk.

To gain intuition for how p-locality functions, we will introduce another notion of locality, called Markov locality, which will use the language of Markov blankets. We will prove that under relatively relaxed conditions p-locality and Markov locality are equivalent. This will allow us to relate the notion of locality to various graph structures commonly used to represent probability distributions, and will be a key step in proving Properties 2.1 and 2.2. We start by defining the Markov boundary, M(X,S), of a random variable X contained in a set of random variables S, as a minimal set such that p(X|S) = p(X|M(X,S)). The Markov boundary defines a minimal set of variables such that, conditioned on these variables, conditioning on no additional random variables in S changes the probability of X [39]. Similarly, we define the Markov blanket, M(X,S) for X in S as any set of variables such that conditioning on M(X,S), makes X conditionally independent from all other variables [39]. In this way, the Markov boundary is a Markov blanket but not all blankets are boundaries. Markov locality: Given probability distribution p(Z) and function f: RNX+NΘ RNΘ, the update function f(Z) is Markov-local with respect to the distribution p over Z if and only if k: Z Ωs.t. AMarkov boundary can be thought of as the set of variables that'locally' communicate with the parameter Θk, thus providing a natural measure of locality. Importantly, for Markov-locality to be of use, we would like the Markov boundaries of random variables in the model of interest to be unique.

Second-order optimization has been shown to accelerate the training of deep neural networks in many applications, often yielding faster progress per iteration on the training loss compared to first-order optimizers. However, the generalization properties of second-order methods are still being debated. Theoretical investigations have proved difficult to carry out outside the tractable settings of heavily simplified model classes - thus, the relevance of existing theories to practical deep learning applications remains unclear. Similarly, empirical studies in large-scale models and real datasets are significantly confounded by the necessity to approximate second-order updates in practice. It is often unclear whether the observed generalization behaviour arises specifically from the second-order nature of the parameter updates, or instead reflects the specific structured (e.g.

The malleable mind: context accumulation drives LLM's belief drift After being trained on a dataset of 80,000 words of conservative political philosophy, Grok-4 changed the stance of its outputs on political questions more than a quarter of the time. This was without any adversarial prompts - the change in training data was enough. As memory mechanisms and research agents [1, 2] enable LLMs to accumulate context across long horizons, earlier prompts increasingly shape later responses. In human decision-making, such repeated exposure influences beliefs without deliberate persuasion [3]. When an LLM operates over accumulated context, does this past exposure cause the stance of the LLM's responses to drift over time?

However, if intrinsic parameters change, neural computations are altered drastically.