Tight $L_\infty$ Sample Complexity for Low-Degree and Sparse Boolean Polynomials

Motivated by the optimization of bounded binary black-box functions, we study the problem of learning polynomial surrogates over the Boolean hypercube. To ensure that optimizing the surrogate yields good solutions for the underlying objective, we require uniform $L_\infty$-error guarantees rather than the usual $L_2$-type guarantees. We characterize the minimax sample complexity of uniform estimation under subgaussian noise for two classes of bounded polynomials. First, for polynomials of degree at most $d$ on $n$ variables, the sample complexity scales as $n^{d+1}$. Second, for $s$-sparse Fourier-Walsh polynomials with $s \leq n$, it scales as $ns^2$. These rates differ structurally from the noiseless setting, where uniform exact recovery scales as $n^d$ and $ns$, respectively. Our lower bounds hold even for arbitrary adaptive learners, showing that the additional factors are intrinsic to the noisy cases. Standard Fourier-analysis tools for the $L_2$-norm do not naturally extend to the $L_\infty$-setting in a way that yields uniform guarantees. Our proofs overcome this difficulty by relying on suitably chosen auxiliary norms that serve as proxies for controlling the $L_\infty$-error. Together, our results provide a tight characterization of the sample complexity of learning optimization-safe polynomial surrogates.

Explaining k-Nearest Neighbors: Abductive and Counterfactual Explanations

Despite the wide use of $k$-Nearest Neighbors as classification models, their explainability properties remain poorly understood from a theoretical perspective. While nearest neighbors classifiers offer interpretability from a "data perspective", in which the classification of an input vector $\bar{x}$ is explained by identifying the vectors $\bar{v}_1, \ldots, \bar{v}_k$ in the training set that determine the classification of $\bar{x}$, we argue that such explanations can be impractical in high-dimensional applications, where each vector has hundreds or thousands of features and it is not clear what their relative importance is. Hence, we focus on understanding nearest neighbor classifications through a "feature perspective", in which the goal is to identify how the values of the features in $\bar{x}$ affect its classification. Concretely, we study abductive explanations such as "minimum sufficient reasons", which correspond to sets of features in $\bar{x}$ that are enough to guarantee its classification, and "counterfactual explanations" based on the minimum distance feature changes one would have to perform in $\bar{x}$ to change its classification. We present a detailed landscape of positive and negative complexity results for counterfactual and abductive explanations, distinguishing between discrete and continuous feature spaces, and considering the impact of the choice of distance function involved. Finally, we show that despite some negative complexity results, Integer Quadratic Programming and SAT solving allow for computing explanations in practice.