Distribution shift (DS) may have two levels: the distribution itself changes, and the support (i.e., the set where the probability density is non-zero) also changes. When considering the support change between the training and test distributions, there can be four cases: (i) they exactly match; (ii) the training support is wider (and thus covers the test support); (iii) the test support is wider; (iv) they partially overlap. Existing methods are good at cases (i) and (ii), while cases (iii) and (iv) are more common nowadays but still under-explored. In this paper, we generalize importance weighting (IW), a golden solver for cases (i) and (ii), to a universal solver for all cases. Specifically, we first investigate why IW might fail in cases (iii) and (iv); based on the findings, we propose generalized IW (GIW) that could handle cases (iii) and (iv) and would reduce to IW in cases (i) and (ii). In GIW, the test support is split into an in-training (IT) part and an out-of-training (OOT) part, and the expected risk is decomposed into a weighted classification term over the IT part and a standard classification term over the OOT part, which guarantees the risk consistency of GIW. Then, the implementation of GIW consists of three components: (a) the split of validation data is carried out by the one-class support vector machine, (b) the first term of the empirical risk can be handled by any IW algorithm given training data and IT validation data, and (c) the second term just involves OOT validation data. Experiments demonstrate that GIW is a universal solver for DS problems, outperforming IW methods in cases (iii) and (iv).

AI reasoning agents are already able to solve a variety of tasks by deploying tools, simulating outcomes of multiple hypotheses and reflecting on them. In doing so, they perform computation, although not in the classical sense -- there is no program being executed. Still, if they perform computation, can AI agents be universal? Can chain-of-thought reasoning solve any computable task? How does an AI Agent learn to reason? Is it a matter of model size? Or training dataset size? In this work, we reinterpret the role of learning in the context of AI Agents, viewing them as compute-capable stochastic dynamical systems, and highlight the role of time in a foundational principle for learning to reason. In doing so, we propose a shift from classical inductive learning to transductive learning -- where the objective is not to approximate the distribution of past data, but to capture their algorithmic structure to reduce the time needed to find solutions to new tasks. Transductive learning suggests that, counter to Shannon's theory, a key role of information in learning is about reduction of time rather than reconstruction error. In particular, we show that the optimal speed-up that a universal solver can achieve using past data is tightly related to their algorithmic information. Using this, we show a theoretical derivation for the observed power-law scaling of inference time versus training time. We then show that scaling model size can lead to behaviors that, while improving accuracy on benchmarks, fail any reasonable test of intelligence, let alone super-intelligence: In the limit of infinite space and time, large models can behave as savants, able to brute-force through any task without any insight. Instead, we argue that the key quantity to optimize when scaling reasoning models is time, whose critical role in learning has so far only been indirectly considered.

Distribution shift (DS) may have two levels: the distribution itself changes, and the support (i.e., the set where the probability density is non-zero) also changes. When considering the support change between the training and test distributions, there can be four cases: (i) they exactly match; (ii) the training support is wider (and thus covers the test support); (iii) the test support is wider; (iv) they partially overlap. Existing methods are good at cases (i) and (ii), while cases (iii) and (iv) are more common nowadays but still under-explored. In this paper, we generalize importance weighting (IW), a golden solver for cases (i) and (ii), to a universal solver for all cases. Specifically, we first investigate why IW might fail in cases (iii) and (iv); based on the findings, we propose generalized IW (GIW) that could handle cases (iii) and (iv) and would reduce to IW in cases (i) and (ii).

Distribution shift (DS) may have two levels: the distribution itself changes, and the support (i.e., the set where the probability density is non-zero) also changes. When considering the support change between the training and test distributions, there can be four cases: (i) they exactly match; (ii) the training support is wider (and thus covers the test support); (iii) the test support is wider; (iv) they partially overlap. Existing methods are good at cases (i) and (ii), while cases (iii) and (iv) are more common nowadays but still under-explored. In this paper, we generalize importance weighting (IW), a golden solver for cases (i) and (ii), to a universal solver for all cases. Specifically, we first investigate why IW might fail in cases (iii) and (iv); based on the findings, we propose generalized IW (GIW) that could handle cases (iii) and (iv) and would reduce to IW in cases (i) and (ii). In GIW, the test support is split into an in-training (IT) part and an out-of-training (OOT) part, and the expected risk is decomposed into a weighted classification term over the IT part and a standard classification term over the OOT part, which guarantees the risk consistency of GIW. Then, the implementation of GIW consists of three components: (a) the split of validation data is carried out by the one-class support vector machine, (b) the first term of the empirical risk can be handled by any IW algorithm given training data and IT validation data, and (c) the second term just involves OOT validation data. Experiments demonstrate that GIW is a universal solver for DS problems, outperforming IW methods in cases (iii) and (iv).