#01Nov 4, 2026
quant-ph
GFlowQEC: Generative Flow Networks that Learn to Sample Quantum LDPC Codes
Nuno Batista, Gabriel Falcao, Penousal Machado
Choosing a quantum error-correcting code for a real device means scoring candidates with circuit-level simulations so slow that only a few hundred can be run. So every evaluation counts, and a search is judged by how many good codes it finds per paid evaluation. Quantum LDPC codes built from a few group elements protect many logical qubits, but good ones are rare in a huge space. We introduce GFlowQEC, to our knowledge the first generative flow network (GFlowNet) for quantum code design. It builds a code one group element at a time and learns to propose codes in proportion to a power of their score. We train it once on scores from earlier searches, freeze it, and let it propose lifted-product codes with 180 physical qubits, scored by their distances. Ranking ten of its draws per paid call, it finds more than twice as many new top-scoring codes (inequivalent to any it was trained on) as tuned parallel tempering, even when tempering starts from GFlowQEC's training codes. It finds more than three and a half times as many as a supervised screen ranking ten random candidates per call. When both rank a hundred, the screen beats GFlowQEC, and does best ranking GFlowQEC's draws. Soft Q-learning, which shares the GFlowNet's optimal policy, does as well at one noise bias and better at the other, so the gain does not depend on the GFlowNet's training loss. Trained proposers can make a budget of expensive evaluations go further when good codes are rare.
#02Nov 4, 2026
cs.LG
Continual Classification Beyond the Kernel Regime: Harnessing the Sparsity Bias of L2 Regularization in Diagonal Linear Networks
Gilad Karpel, Itay Evron, Ron Meir and 1 more
We study logistic regression for continual learning with linear predictors in a high-dimensional statistical setting. Existing theoretical work has largely focused on continual linear regression with variants of L2 regularization, motivated by their analytical simplicity and connection to the kernel regime of neural networks. We first derive the optimal L2 regularization strength for continual linear classification and characterize its generalization performance, recovering behavior analogous to prior results for continual linear regression. Next, we examine the effect of L2 regularization in deeper models using a minimal two-layer diagonal linear network. In the single-task setting, L2 regularization on the weights of such models is known to promote sparsity in the resulting predictor, yielding a rich, sparse feature-learning regime beyond the kernel regime (a similar effect arises in two-layer ReLU networks). However, in continual learning, where L2 regularization is typically centered on previous-task weights, this sparsity bias is no longer preserved. We therefore propose a weighted variant of L2 regularization that extends this beneficial sparsity bias to continual learning. We show theoretically and empirically that, for a sufficiently sparse teacher, our variant converges substantially faster than directly learning a linear predictor with conventional continual L2 or L1 regularization, trading some long-horizon bias for markedly improved performance over moderate task horizons.
#03Nov 4, 2026
cs.LG
Adaptive Multi Mode: Budget-Aware Routing of Optimizers By Online Landscape Probes
Benjamin Jacob Bodner
The best classical optimizer for a continuous black-box problem depends on its budget and landscape. Existing routers decide from the dimension and budget, past improvement or features fitted to one benchmark, and few test an optimizer's implicit assumptions online. AMM (Adaptive Multi Mode) routes a known budget among quasi-Newton, trust-region, coordinate, multistart and evolution-strategy optimization engines with online probes of curvature, plateaus, separability, kinks, basins and fractal structure. Each probe has a default, a dimension-by-budget validity range and a cost charged to the budget. In its pre-registered development loop on bbob, 32 of 36 predictions held over the last 16 confirmations. AMM was then tested once on held-out bbob instances 101-110 (D=2-40, 10*D-1000*D) against up to seven competitors. It has the highest target share in 382 of 600 function-dimension-budget cells (236 outright, 146 tied) and, by a descriptive posterior rule, is credibly behind in 35, mostly at 10*D and 30*D. At every budget it also leads the controls built from its own engines (the best engine alone, the best engine per dimension and budget, and a greedy schedule), narrowly at 10*D and 30*D, and nevergrad's NgIohTuned. In pre-registered runs its lead over IPOP-CMA-ES holds under affine and box transformations, on box-constrained bbob and, pooled, on rotated f2-f4, but rotating the separable f3 and f4 removes most of the lead there. On held-out MA-BBOB its final share at 2000*D is level with IPOP-CMA-ES's and its anytime area lower. We published AMM as an open-source Python package (pip install amm-optimizer; https://github.com/BjBodner/amm-optimizer).
#04Nov 4, 2026
math.ST
Regularization vs. Convolution in Kernel-Based Hypothesis Testing
Omar Hagrass, Bharath K. Sriperumbudur
The maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) test is a popular nonparametric test on general domains. Two lines of work have studied its optimality through structurally different approaches. The first, a convolution approach on $\mathbb{R}^d$, uses translation-invariant kernels with a shrinking bandwidth and is minimax optimal over Sobolev balls under $L^2$-separation; the second, a regularization approach on general measurable spaces, uses spectral regularization of the kernel covariance operator and is minimax optimal over Hellinger- and $χ^2$-separated alternatives. In this paper, we study the regularization approach over Sobolev balls under $L^2$-separation, which reveals the connection between the two approaches. We show that, with a translation-invariant kernel on $\mathbb{R}^d$, both are ways of meeting a single condition on the kernel's spectral density: the spectral regularized discrepancy captures the $L^2$-separation $Δ$ of a Sobolev alternative of smoothness $s$ as soon as the regularization parameter $λ$ is below the spectral density on frequencies up to $Δ^{-1/(2s)}$. A kernel with a shrinking bandwidth $h$ meets this condition with $λ\asymp h^d$, and under this coupling the constant regularizer, which gives the MMD test itself, attains the Sobolev minimax rate. This explains, from a spectral perspective, the need for a shrinking bandwidth in the convolution approach. With a non-constant spectral regularizer, our analysis requires the bandwidth to shrink only when the spectral density decays faster than any polynomial, as for the Gaussian kernel. Thus, for Matérn and Laplace kernels, a fixed bandwidth with $λ\to 0$ attains the Sobolev minimax rate. Finally, an adaptive test over a grid of bandwidths and regularization parameters is minimax optimal, up to a $\log\log$ factor, over both classes without prior knowledge of the smoothness.
#05Nov 4, 2026
cs.LG
Navigating Disagreement Among Criteria for Evaluating Explanation Faithfulness
Grant Shanklin, Jiří Němeček, Asia Biega
Faithfulness requires that algorithmic explanations accurately reflect the model's behavior. Yet existing operationalizations of faithfulness can disagree about whether the same explanation is faithful, leaving developers and auditors to choose among conflicting evaluations. In this paper, we investigate disagreement among evaluation criteria and offer a practical path forward for evaluating explanation faithfulness. We first identify how operationalizations of faithfulness differ. We introduce a faithfulness functional that locates their disagreements in what an explanation claims about the model, which comparisons bear on that claim, and how agreement across those comparisons should be aggregated, and we reconstruct existing evaluation criteria within it. We argue these reconstructions support understanding faithfulness as a common though incompletely specified relation between the model and explanation, so the differences reflect choices left open by the general requirement. Justifying an operationalization then comes down to justifying these choices, which, on our view, draws on explanatory, institutional, and normative considerations. We support this argument with a case study of adverse action notices, reconstructing the evaluation implicit in an industry-proposed procedure and identifying which of its choices the setting justifies and which remain open. Our work gives auditors and practitioners a way to navigate disagreeing evaluations of faithfulness. It also explains why the literature should expect multiple operationalizations, while showing how concrete settings can narrow the choice among them. More broadly, our analysis shows how a shared requirement of faithfulness can support contextually justified evaluations despite disagreement among existing metrics.