The Sample Complexity of Multiclass and Sparse Contextual Bandits

We study contextual bandits in the stochastic i.i.d.\ setting, where a learner observes contexts drawn from an unknown distribution, selects actions from a finite set $A$, and aims to identify an approximately optimal policy from a given class based on bandit feedback. Motivated by bandit multiclass classification with zero-one rewards, we focus on the \emph{$s$-sparse} setting in which, for every context, the reward vector has $L_1$-norm at most $s \ll |A|$. Our main result is the design of algorithms that, with high probability, output an $ε$-optimal policy compared to policy class $Π$ using $\tilde{O} ((s/ε^2 + |A|/ε)\log |Π|/δ)$ samples. We extend this bound to general Natarajan classes and complement it with a matching lower bound (up to logarithmic factors), thereby closing a substantial gap left by prior work (Erez et al., 2024, 2025), which incurred an additional $Θ(|A|^9)$ dependence. We obtain these results via two complementary approaches. First, we analyze contextual bandits through the lens of contextual decision making with structured observations, designing an exploration-by-optimization algorithm whose sample complexity is governed by the \emph{decision-estimation coefficient} (DEC; Foster et al., 2021, 2022). We show that, with $s$-sparse rewards, the induced model class admits a sharp DEC bound that scales with $s$ and directly yields the optimal rate. Since this approach is largely information-theoretic and involves solving complex min-max optimization problems, we also develop a second, more specialized algorithmic method based on a low-variance exploration technique. This approach leads to concrete, tractable algorithms and naturally extends to contextual combinatorial semi-bandits, leading to improved sample complexity guarantees for bandit multiclass list classification.

PAC Learning with Bandit Feedback: Sharp Sample Complexity in the Realizable Setting

We study the problem of multiclass PAC learning with bandit feedback in the realizable setting. In this framework, there is an unknown data distribution over an instance space $\mathcal{X}$ and a label space $\mathcal{Y}$, as in classical multiclass PAC learning, but the learner does not observe the labels of the i.i.d. training examples. Instead, in each round, it receives an unlabeled instance, predicts its label, and receives bandit feedback indicating only whether the prediction is correct. Despite this restriction, the goal remains the same as in classical PAC learning. We provide a general characterization of the optimal sample complexity of this problem, sharp for every concept class up to logarithmic factors. Our characterization is based on a new combinatorial dimension, termed the bandit $\mathrm{DS}$ dimension, defined via generalized combinatorial structures we call pseudo-boxes. These extend the pseudo-cubes underlying the $\mathrm{DS}$ dimension by allowing a different number of neighbors in each coordinate. In contrast to the $\mathrm{DS}$ dimension, which governs the full-information setting by counting the number of coordinates in the pseudo-cube, the bandit $\mathrm{DS}$ dimension aggregates the number of neighbors across coordinates, leading to a characterization in which the sample complexity scales with the total number of neighbors. We also propose a general learning algorithm achieving the upper bound, based on an algorithmic principle called ListCascade, which connects bandit learning to list learning and may be of independent interest.

Optimal Reconstruction from Linear Queries

We study the problem of reconstructing an unknown point in $\mathbb{R}^d$ from approximate linear queries. This setting arises naturally in applications ranging from low-dimensional remote sensing and signal recovery to high-dimensional data analysis and privacy-sensitive inference. Our main goal is to characterize the optimal reconstruction error as a function of the number of queries $T$, the ambient dimension $d$, and the noise parameter $δ$. We first analyze the limit $T \to \infty$ and show that the optimal reconstruction error converges to the explicit value $\sqrt{2d/(d+1)} δ$, which plays a role analogous to the Bayes optimal error in supervised learning. When the dimension is fixed, we show that the excess error above this limit decays doubly exponentially fast as $T \to \infty$, a rate that is significantly faster than those typically encountered in learning curves. When the dimension grows, we show that a number of queries on the order of $\exp(d)$ is necessary and sufficient to achieve vanishing excess error. Finally, we introduce and analyze an improper variant of the reconstruction problem. From a technical perspective, our main contribution is a generalization of Jung's theorem (1901). The classical theorem bounds the maximum possible radius of a set of diameter 1 and characterizes extremal bodies. Our generalization provides a robust variant that characterizes near-extremal bodies and is proved via geometric and dynamical arguments exploiting symmetry and Lie group actions.

Strategic PAC Learnability via Geometric Definability

Strategic classification studies learning settings in which individuals can modify their features, at a cost, in order to influence the classifier's decision. A central question is how the sample complexity of the induced (strategic) hypothesis class depends on the complexities of the underlying hypothesis class and the cost structure governing feasible manipulations. Prior work has shown that in several natural settings, such as linear classifiers with norm costs, the induced complexity can be controlled. We begin by showing that such guarantees fail in general - even in simple cases: there exist hypothesis classes of VC dimension $1$ on the real line such that, even under the simplest interval neighborhoods, the induced class has infinite VC dimension. Thus, strategic behavior can turn an easy learning problem into a non-learnable one. To overcome this, we introduce structure via a geometric definability assumption: both the hypothesis class and the cost-induced neighborhood relation can be defined by first-order formulas over $\mathbb{R}_{\mathtt{exp}}$. Intuitively, this means that hypotheses and costs can be described using arithmetic operations, exponentiation, logarithms, and comparisons. This captures a broad range of natural classes and cost functions, including $\ell_p$ distances, Wasserstein distance, and information-theoretic divergences. Under this assumption, we prove that learnability is preserved, with sample complexity controlled by the complexity of the defining formulas.

Scale-Sensitive Shattering: Learnability and Evaluability at Optimal Scale

We study the optimal scale at which real-valued function classes exhibit uniform convergence and learnability. Our main result establishes a scale-sensitive generalization of the fundamental theorem of PAC learning: for every bounded real-valued class and every $γ>0$, uniform convergence at scale $γ$, agnostic learnability at scale $γ/2$, and finiteness of the fat-shattering dimension at every scale $γ'>γ$ are equivalent. This resolves a question by Anthony and Bartlett (Cambridge Univ. Press 1999) on the precise scales governing learnability, refuting a conjecture attributed there to Phil Long that a multiplicative 2-factor gap is unavoidable, and improves the upper bounds of Bartlett and Long (JCSS 1998), which incur such a loss. The key technical ingredient is a direct bound on empirical $\ell_\infty$ covering numbers, avoiding the standard detour through packing numbers. As a consequence, we obtain sharp asymptotic metric-entropy bounds in terms of the fat-shattering scale $γ$: an $O(\log^2 n)$ bound holds already at scale $γ/2$, while an $O(\log n)$ bound holds at scale $2γ$. We further show that the $O(\log^2 n)$ bound is sometimes tight. These results resolve open questions by Alon et al. (JACM 1997) and Rudelson and Vershynin (Ann. of Math. 2006). As an application, we establish a sharp dichotomy for bounded integral probability metrics: every such IPM is either estimable or cannot be weakly evaluated within any multiplicative factor $c<3$, while $3$-weak evaluability always holds, resolving an open question from Aiyer et al. (ICML 2026). We also highlight several open questions on quantitative sample complexity and evaluability.

Online Set Learning from Precision and Recall Feedback

We consider the problem of learning an unknown subset $N_\text{target}$ of a domain in an online setting. In each round $t$, the learner predicts a set of items ${N}_t$ and receives one of two types of feedback, each with equal probability: precision feedback, in which a randomly chosen item from the predicted set $N_t$ is revealed and the learner is told whether it belongs to $N_\text{target}$ (incurring a reward if it does), or recall feedback, in which a randomly chosen item from the target set $N_\text{target}$ is revealed and the learner is told whether it belongs to $N_t$ (incurring a reward if it does). The goal is to maximize the cumulative reward over time. This simple online set learning problem abstracts a variety of learning scenarios with precision- and recall-type feedback. We show that a hypothesis class (a family of subsets of the domain) is learnable in this setting if and only if it has finite Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) dimension, mirroring the classical PAC characterization. However, the resulting algorithmic structure is markedly more intricate: in contrast to standard Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) learning -- where the algorithmic landscape is governed by the simple principle of Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) -- our partial feedback model can invalidate ERM and even all proper learning rules. We develop algorithms to address the dependencies induced by the feedback, obtaining regret guarantees in both the realizable and agnostic settings. Our results provide a qualitative characterization of learnability in this model, addressing its most basic question, while pointing to a range of natural and intriguing open questions, including the determination of optimal regret rates.

An Optimal Sauer Lemma Over $k$-ary Alphabets

The Sauer-Shelah-Perles Lemma is a cornerstone of combinatorics and learning theory, bounding the size of a binary hypothesis class in terms of its Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) dimension. For classes of functions over a $k$-ary alphabet, namely the multiclass setting, the Natarajan dimension has long served as an analogue of VC dimension, yet the corresponding Sauer-type bounds are suboptimal for alphabet sizes $k>2$. In this work, we establish a sharp Sauer inequality for multiclass and list prediction. Our bound is expressed in terms of the Daniely--Shalev-Shwartz (DS) dimension, and more generally with its extension, the list-DS dimension -- the combinatorial parameters that characterize multiclass and list PAC learnability. Our bound is tight for every alphabet size $k$, list size $\ell$, and dimension value, replacing the exponential dependence on $\ell$ in the Natarajan-based bound by the optimal polynomial dependence, and improving the dependence on $k$ as well. Our proof uses the polynomial method. In contrast to the classical VC case, where several direct combinatorial proofs are known, we are not aware of any purely combinatorial proof in the DS setting. This motivates several directions for future research, which are discussed in the paper. As consequences, we obtain improved sample complexity upper bounds for list PAC learning and for uniform convergence of list predictors, sharpening the recent results of Charikar et al.~(STOC~2023), Hanneke et al.~(COLT~2024), and Brukhim et al.~(NeurIPS~2024).

Sample Complexity of Autoregressive Reasoning: Chain-of-Thought vs. End-to-End

Modern large language models generate text autoregressively, producing tokens one at a time. To study the learnability of such systems, Joshi et al. (COLT 2025) introduced a PAC-learning framework for next-token generators, the primitive underlying autoregressive models. In this framework, an unknown next-token generator maps a sequence of tokens to the next token and is iteratively applied for $T$ steps, producing a chain of tokens whose final token constitutes the model's output. The learning task is to learn the input-output mapping induced by this autoregressive process. Depending on the available supervision, training examples may reveal only the final output (End-to-End supervision) or the entire generated chain (Chain-of-Thought supervision). This raises two natural questions: how the sample complexity depends on the generation length $T$, and how much Chain-of-Thought supervision can reduce this dependence. In this work we give a nearly complete answer to both questions by uncovering a taxonomy of how the sample complexity scales with $T$. For End-to-End learning, we show that the landscape is remarkably rich: subject to mild conditions, essentially any growth rate $r(T)$ between constant and linear can arise as the sample complexity, and combined with the linear upper bound of Joshi et al., this yields an essentially complete characterization. In contrast, under Chain-of-Thought supervision we show that the sample complexity is independent of $T$, demonstrating that access to intermediate reasoning steps can eliminate the dependence on the generation length altogether. Our analysis introduces new combinatorial tools, and as corollaries we resolve several open questions posed by Joshi et al. regarding the dependence of learnability on the generation length and the role of Chain-of-Thought supervision.

A Theoretical Framework for Statistical Evaluability of Generative Models

Statistical evaluation aims to estimate the generalization performance of a model using held-out i.i.d.\ test data sampled from the ground-truth distribution. In supervised learning settings such as classification, performance metrics such as error rate are well-defined, and test error reliably approximates population error given sufficiently large datasets. In contrast, evaluation is more challenging for generative models due to their open-ended nature: it is unclear which metrics are appropriate and whether such metrics can be reliably evaluated from finite samples. In this work, we introduce a theoretical framework for evaluating generative models and establish evaluability results for commonly used metrics. We study two categories of metrics: test-based metrics, including integral probability metrics (IPMs), and Rényi divergences. We show that IPMs with respect to any bounded test class can be evaluated from finite samples up to multiplicative and additive approximation errors. Moreover, when the test class has finite fat-shattering dimension, IPMs can be evaluated with arbitrary precision. In contrast, Rényi and KL divergences are not evaluable from finite samples, as their values can be critically determined by rare events. We also analyze the potential and limitations of perplexity as an evaluation method.

Learning from Equivalence Queries, Revisited

Modern machine learning systems, such as generative models and recommendation systems, often evolve through a cycle of deployment, user interaction, and periodic model updates. This differs from standard supervised learning frameworks, which focus on loss or regret minimization over a fixed sequence of prediction tasks. Motivated by this setting, we revisit the classical model of learning from equivalence queries, introduced by Angluin (1988). In this model, a learner repeatedly proposes hypotheses and, when a deployed hypothesis is inadequate, receives a counterexample. Under fully adversarial counterexample generation, however, the model can be overly pessimistic. In addition, most prior work assumes a \emph{full-information} setting, where the learner also observes the correct label of the counterexample, an assumption that is not always natural. We address these issues by restricting the environment to a broad class of less adversarial counterexample generators, which we call \emph{symmetric}. Informally, such generators choose counterexamples based only on the symmetric difference between the hypothesis and the target. This class captures natural mechanisms such as random counterexamples (Angluin and Dohrn, 2017; Bhatia, 2021; Chase, Freitag, and Reyzin, 2024), as well as generators that return the simplest counterexample according to a prescribed complexity measure. Within this framework, we study learning from equivalence queries under both full-information and bandit feedback. We obtain tight bounds on the number of learning rounds in both settings and highlight directions for future work. Our analysis combines a game-theoretic view of symmetric adversaries with adaptive weighting methods and minimax arguments.