#01Nov 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.
#02Nov 4, 2026
cs.CV
Coupled Scene Graph Anticipation: When With-Constraint Recall Hides Structural Inconsistency
Zeno Nongmaithem, Anushttha Srivastava, Anshit Sinha and 4 more
Scene Graph Anticipation (SGA) predicts object relationships in future video frames. Continuous-time SGA models evolve each subject-object pair with an independent Neural ODE, so relationships sharing an entity cannot influence one another during integration, and nothing prevents mutually exclusive predictions, such as "sitting on" and "standing on", for the same pair. We introduce CoupledSGA, which links such relationships through a Relationship Interaction Graph with graph attention inside the ODE vector field, and adds a Structural Consistency Loss ($\mathcal{L}_{SC}$) based on a matrix of mutually exclusive predicates. Developing CoupledSGA revealed a limitation of the evaluation protocol. With-Constraint evaluation keeps one predicate per group for each subject-object pair, so its R@K and mR@K cannot capture the within-group violations targeted by $\mathcal{L}_{SC}$: we prove they are unchanged whenever each group's winning predicate and its score are held fixed. We further show that the gradient of $\mathcal{L}_{SC}$ depends on predicate scores rather than ground-truth labels: for two-predicate rules it amplifies the ordering the model already holds, and when all scores in a group are equal it suppresses predicates in more exclusion rules more strongly, explaining why the penalty can lower recall while improving consistency. On Action Genome, activating $\mathcal{L}_{SC}$ after two warm-up epochs reduces R@20 from 42.21% to 35.18% while lowering the No-Constraint contradiction rate from 45.92% to 4.07% (matched-budget R@20: 40.48% CoupledSGA vs. 44.78% SceneSayerODE). CoupledSGA is a testbed, not a state-of-the-art claim: With-Constraint recall captures the cost of enforcing structural consistency but not the improvement. We recommend reporting No-Constraint results alongside a contradiction rate for methods that constrain predicate co-activation.
#03Nov 4, 2026
cs.RO
ConDR: Conservative Reachability through Neural Hamilton-Jacobi Subsolutions
Kendra Givens, Taylor T. Johnson, Bryan C. Ward and 1 more
Hamilton-Jacobi (HJ) Reachability identifies the unsafe states of a dynamical system from which it can be forced into failure under worst-case disturbance. However, classical grid-based solvers scale exponentially with state dimension. DeepReach improves scalability by replacing the grid with a neural value function trained on the HJ-Isaacs (HJI) variational inequality (VI), but penalizes both sides of the residual equally. This allows the learned value to lie above the true one and unsafe states to be misclassified as safe. We propose Conservative DeepReach (ConDR) which aims to learn a subsolution of the HJI VI such that the learned unsafe set contains the true one. ConDR enforces the obstacle branch and terminal condition by construction, pushes the HJI residual to a safety margin $ε$ below zero with a one-sided loss, and prevents the degenerate solution of classifying everything as unsafe. We prove that the exact solution of the margin-shifted VI that ConDR trains toward is a subsolution of the original VI so its unsafe set contains the true one and its value lies within $ετ$ of the true value function. We compare against DeepReach and MADR in the established systems of Air3D, Air6D, a 9D multi-vehicle system, and a 13D quadrotor. ConDR reports the lowest rate of unsafe state misclassified and the lowest closed-loop collision rates with at most a small increase in intervention. On Air3D and Air6D, ConDR tolerates model mismatch that scales with $ε$. At matched false-negative rates, ConDR's unsafe sets are smaller than the baselines showing the safety is not obtained by trivial over-approximation.
#04Nov 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).
#05Nov 4, 2026
stat.ML
Alignment Myopia in Generative AI
Remi Denton, Aida Davani, Cynthia L Bennett and 3 more
Current generative AI alignment relies on a myopic paradigm that prioritizes immediate conversational satisfaction. By relying on short-horizon feedback, this approach ignores the profound, longitudinal externalities of persistent human-AI interaction, which can lead to adverse outcomes such as cognitive atrophy, social erosion, and diminished human agency. To address this, we propose a paradigm shift toward long-horizon alignment that accounts for how AI reshapes human experience over time. To this end, we map the tensions between near-term utility and long-term costs of AI use across four facets of human well-being to reveal outcomes that current reward models fail to capture. Ultimately, we advocate for moving beyond simple preference optimization toward alignment strategies that actively foster long-term human well-being by navigating these complex temporal scales.