Since human planning systematically deviates from rationality, several approaches have been tried to account for specific human shortcomings. However, the general problem of inferring the reward function of an agent of unknown rationality has received little attention. Unlike the well-known ambiguity problems in IRL, this one is practically relevant but cannot be resolved by observing the agent's policy in enough environments. This paper shows (1) that a No Free Lunch result implies it is impossible to uniquely decompose a policy into a planning algorithm and reward function, and (2) that even with a reasonable simplicity prior/Occam's razor on the set of decompositions, we cannot distinguish between the true decomposition and others that lead to high regret. To address this, we need simple `normative' assumptions, which cannot be deduced exclusively from observations.

The Best Razor I've Ever Used Is on Sale Henson Razors are engineered to give a spectacular shave with dirt-cheap generic blades. Razors are one of the most heavily and competitively marketed products in American capitalism. Made with steel and plastic that costs a few pennies, but sold for a thousand percent profit, the razor market is the subject of vigorous academic study and debate. The founder of Gillette famously came up with a model of basically giving away the razor handle so he could sell the blades. Canadian startup Henson has the opposite model, charging $79 for a razor that can give you an excellent shave with dirt-cheap disposable blades that cost about 15 cents each .

Since human planning systematically deviates from rationality, several approaches have been tried to account for specific human shortcomings. However, the general problem of inferring the reward function of an agent of unknown rationality has received little attention. Unlike the well-known ambiguity problems in IRL, this one is practically relevant but cannot be resolved by observing the agent's policy in enough environments. This paper shows (1) that a No Free Lunch result implies it is impossible to uniquely decompose a policy into a planning algorithm and reward function, and (2) that even with a reasonable simplicity prior/Occam's razor on the set of decompositions, we cannot distinguish between the true decomposition and others that lead to high regret. To address this, we need simple `normative' assumptions, which cannot be deduced exclusively from observations.

We include some other experiments not described in the paper.

We include some other experiments not described in the paper.

The integration of the history and philosophy of statistics was initiated at least by Hacking (1975) and advanced by Hacking (1990), Mayo (1996), and Zabell (2005), but it has not received sustained follow-up. Yet such integration is more urgent than ever, as the recent success of artificial intelligence has been driven largely by machine learning -- a field historically developed alongside statistics. Today, the boundary between statistics and machine learning is increasingly blurred. What we now need is integration, twice over: of history and philosophy, and of two fields they engage -- statistics and machine learning. I present a case study of a philosophical idea in machine learning (and in formal epistemology) whose root can be traced back to an often under-appreciated insight in Neyman and Pearson's 1936 work (a follow-up to their 1933 classic). This leads to the articulation of an epistemological principle -- largely implicit in, but shared by, the practices of frequentist statistics and machine learning -- which I call achievabilism: the thesis that the correct standard for assessing non-deductive inference methods should not be fixed, but should instead be sensitive to what is achievable in specific problem contexts. Another integration also emerges at the level of methodology, combining two ends of the philosophy of science spectrum: history and philosophy of science on the one hand, and formal epistemology on the other hand.

Symmetries have proven useful in machine learning models, improving generalisation and overall performance. At the same time, recent advancements in learning dynamical systems rely on modelling the underlying Hamiltonian to guarantee the conservation of energy.These approaches can be connected via a seminal result in mathematical physics: Noether's theorem, which states that symmetries in a dynamical system correspond to conserved quantities.This work uses Noether's theorem to parameterise symmetries as learnable conserved quantities. We then allow conserved quantities and associated symmetries to be learned directly from train data through approximate Bayesian model selection, jointly with the regular training procedure. As training objective, we derive a variational lower bound to the marginal likelihood. The objective automatically embodies an Occam's Razor effect that avoids collapse of conversation laws to the trivial constant, without the need to manually add and tune additional regularisers.

Neural network sparsification is a promising avenue to save computational time and memory costs, especially in an age where many successful AI models are becoming too large to naively deploy on consumer hardware. While much work has focused on different weight pruning criteria, the overall sparsifiability of the network, i.e., its capacity to be pruned without quality loss, has often been overlooked. We present Sparsifiability via the Marginal likelihood (SpaM), a sparsification framework that highlights the effectiveness of using the Bayesian marginal likelihood in conjunction with sparsity-inducing priors for making neural networks more sparsifiable. Our approach implements an automatic Occam's razor that selects the most sparsifiable model that still explains the data well, both for structured and unstructured sparsification. In addition, we demonstrate that the pre-computed posterior precision from the Laplace approximation can be re-used to define a cheap pruning criterion, which outperforms many existing (more expensive) approaches.

The debate between scientific realism and anti-realism remains at a stalemate, making reconciliation seem hopeless. Yet, important work remains: exploring a common ground, even if only to uncover deeper points of disagreement and, ideally, to benefit both sides of the debate. I propose such a common ground. Specifically, many anti-realists, such as instrumentalists, have yet to seriously engage with Sober's call to justify their preferred version of Ockham's razor through a positive account. Meanwhile, realists face a similar challenge: providing a non-circular explanation of how their version of Ockham's razor connects to truth. The common ground I propose addresses these challenges for both sides; the key is to leverage the idea that everyone values some truths and to draw on insights from scientific fields that study scientific inference -- namely, statistics and machine learning. This common ground also isolates a distinctively epistemic root of the irreconcilability in the realism debate.

Despite the widespread use of LLMs due to their superior performance in various tasks, their high computational costs often lead potential users to opt for the pretraining-finetuning pipeline. However, biases prevalent in manually constructed datasets can introduce spurious correlations between tokens and labels, creating so-called shortcuts and hindering the generalizability of fine-tuned models. Existing debiasing methods often rely on prior knowledge of specific dataset biases, which is challenging to acquire a priori. We propose RAZOR (Rewriting And Zero-bias Optimization Refinement), a novel, unsupervised, and data-focused debiasing approach based on text rewriting for shortcut mitigation. RAZOR leverages LLMs to iteratively rewrite potentially biased text segments by replacing them with heuristically selected alternatives in a shortcut space defined by token statistics and positional information. This process aims to align surface-level text features more closely with diverse label distributions, thereby promoting the learning of genuine linguistic patterns. Compared with unsupervised SoTA models, RAZOR improves by 3.5% on the FEVER and 6.5% on MNLI and SNLI datasets according to the F1 score. Additionally, RAZOR effectively mitigates specific known biases, reducing bias-related terms by x2 without requiring prior bias information, a result that is on par with SoTA models that leverage prior information. Our work prioritizes data manipulation over architectural modifications, emphasizing the pivotal role of data quality in enhancing model performance and fairness. This research contributes to developing more robust evaluation benchmarks for debiasing methods by incorporating metrics for bias reduction and overall model efficacy.