Recent work has established a fundamental trilemma between Byzantine robustness, local differential privacy (LDP), and optimization error in distributed learning. We show that this trilemma does not universally extend to generalization error, but instead depends critically on the privacy regime. Specifically, in the high-noise regime (strong privacy), we prove that increasing privacy reduces the generalization error, i.e., there is no tension between robustness and privacy. In the low-noise regime (weaker privacy), however, the tension between robustness and privacy reappears and increasing privacy indeed degrades generalization. Our theory explains this surprising non-monotonic behavior of the generalization error via matching lower and upper bounds on the algorithmic stability of Byzantine-robust distributed learning under LDP constraints. We corroborate and further analyze these theoretical findings with empirical evaluations.

Many modern generative modeling methods, including diffusion models, normalizing flows, and flow matching, estimate transport maps or plans between distributions without explicitly targeting an optimal transport (OT) map. In applications like generative modeling, the transport cost itself is irrelevant, and this makes it natural to target maps which are more tractable from either a statistical or computational standpoint. In this short note, we formalize the task of estimating any valid transport map in a rigorous minimax framework. One consequence of this framing is that it yields sample complexity lower bounds for any method whose learned object is evaluated as a transport map or plan, including flow matching and diffusion-based generative models, in settings where direct analysis would be challenging due to the analytic complexity of the methods and their target maps. We observe that, under standard, though strong, stability assumptions from the OT literature, estimating any valid transport map is statistically as hard as estimating the OT map. We complement these results with some examples showing that when these stability assumptions fail, alternative transport maps can be learned substantially more accurately than the OT map. Our minimax framing provides a rigorous foundation for understanding the statistical limits of modern transport-based generative methods and clarifies when targeting sub-optimal maps can provide real statistical advantages.

Last-iterate convergence and generalization guarantees in first-order convex learning hinge on the monotonicity of the update operator. While linear averaging preserves the monotonicity of gradient updates, this property is often violated when gradients are aggregated non-affinely, as in modern pipelines enforcing constraints like adaptivity, privacy, robustness or fairness. Whether it is possible to design non-affine aggregation rules that maintain monotonicity has remained an open question. We answer this question negatively: we prove that the monotonicity of aggregated gradients is preserved if and only if the aggregation rule is positively affine. Consequently, non-affine aggregation prevents steady convergence and substantially degrade algorithmic stability. We quantify these drawbacks and propose a path forward by identifying sufficient conditions under which monotonicity can be restored. Our results provide a unified theoretical framework explaining the disparate failure modes observed in modern learning systems.

Abstract--As black-box models become foundational to mod-solution that can be applied across a wide range of scientific ern research, ensuring their stability is paramount for the realiza-and industrial domains. The inherent diversity of inputs--ranging from structured Gaussian distributions to Notwithstanding its widespread application, the framework complex data with unknown structures--poses a significantexhibits certain shortcomings when dealing with complex challenge: how to stabilize black-box outputs while effectivelydatasets. First, standard resampling schemes often fail to leveraging available prior information. This paper introduces aaccount for the underlying data structures; as a result, the task-oriented randomization methodology that adaptively tailorsdrawn samples cannot reflect the true data distribution, thereby its strategy to the underlying generative mechanisms of the input data, specifically addressing unstructured complexities. Second, effective sampling requires prior comprehensive suite of stability guarantees is proposed. Beyondknowledge of the distribution, which is often unattainable establishing rigorous theoretical foundations for stability, thein practical environments.

We study which machine learning algorithms have tight generalization bounds with respect to a given collection of population distributions. Our results build on and extend the recent work of Gastpar et al. (2024). First, we present conditions that preclude the existence of tight generalization bounds. Specifically, we show that algorithms that have certain inductive biases that cause them to be unstable do not admit tight generalization bounds. Next, we show that algorithms that are sufficiently loss-stable do have tight generalization bounds. We conclude with a simple characterization that relates the existence of tight generalization bounds to the conditional variance of the algorithm's loss.

Conformal prediction offers a distribution-free framework for constructing prediction sets with coverage guarantees. In practice, multiple valid conformal prediction sets may be available, arising from different models or methodologies. However, selecting the most desirable set, such as the smallest, can invalidate the coverage guarantees. To address this challenge, we propose a stability-based approach that ensures coverage for the selected prediction set. We extend our results to the online conformal setting, propose several refinements in settings where additional structure is available, and demonstrate its effectiveness through experiments.

Gradient-based algorithms are a cornerstone of artificial neural network training, yet it remains unclear whether biological neural networks use similar gradientbased strategies during learning. Experiments often discover a diversity of synaptic plasticity rules, but whether these amount to an approximation to gradient descent is unclear. Here we investigate a previously overlooked possibility: that learning dynamics may include fundamentally non-gradient "curl"-like components while still being able to effectively optimize a loss function. Curl terms naturally emerge in networks with inhibitory-excitatory connectivity or Hebbian/anti-Hebbian plasticity, resulting in learning dynamics that cannot be framed as gradient descent on any objective. To investigate the impact of these curl terms, we analyze feedforward networks within an analytically tractable student-teacher framework, systematically introducing non-gradient dynamics through neurons exhibiting rule-flipped plasticity.

This paper proposes a novel scene understanding task called Visual Jenga. Drawing inspiration from the game Jenga, the proposed task involves progressively removing objects from a single image until only the background remains. Just as Jenga players must understand structural dependencies to maintain tower stability, our task reveals the intrinsic relationships between scene elements by systematically exploring which objects can be removed while preserving scene coherence in both physical and geometric sense. As a starting point for tackling the Visual Jenga task, we propose a simple, data-driven, training-free approach that is surprisingly effective on a range of real-world images. The principle behind our approach is to utilize the asymmetry in the pairwise relationships between objects within a scene and employ a large inpainting model to generate a set of counterfactuals to quantify the asymmetry.

We prove that the Kim--Milman flow map enjoys favorable stability properties with respect to variations in the target measure, provided that one of the target measures is sufficiently regular. Our results include stability in relative entropy, and more notably, Lipschitz stability in the $2$-Wasserstein distance up to a logarithmic factor. We complement our results with a general existence theorem for these maps for any target measure with finite second moment.

Modern data analysis usually gives a prediction without showing whether the evidence behind it is clear, conflicting, or stable. Two cases can have the same fitted confidence even when one has mostly agreeing evidence and the other has strong support and strong opposition. We propose Signed Evidence Flow (SEF), which combines a fitted prediction rule with signed feature attributions to measure support, opposition, conflict, and perturbation stability. We prove that confidence determines conflict exactly when it also determines total evidence mass, derive the remaining conditional variance, and state when conflict can improve loss prediction beyond confidence and other audit variables. We also connect conflict to geometric decision fragility. Across healthcare, Covertype, black-box, finance, and ten external data sets, conflict sometimes separates risk among predictions that already appear confident. Cross-fitted tests show added error-ranking information beyond confidence and attribution entropy on several data sets, including two large finance tasks. The direction is not universal: in some tasks, lowconflict cases are riskier. We therefore introduce ScopeGate, a held-out permutation diagnostic that checks the direction before SEF is used for review triage. SEF is consequently an audit tool rather than a universal risk score: it describes evidence structure, while an independent calibration sample determines whether that structure is useful in the target population.