mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Proper Learnability and the Role of Unlabeled Data

arXiv 2502.10359 ↗First posted 14 Feb 2025cs.LG stat.MLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Proper learning refers to the setting in which learners must emit predictors in the underlying hypothesis class H, and often leads to learners with simple algorithmic forms (e.g. empirical risk minimization (ERM), structural risk minimization (SRM)). The limitation of proper learning, however, is that there exist problems which can only be learned improperly, e.g. in multiclass classification. Thus, we ask: Under what assumptions on the hypothesis class or the information provided to the learner is a problem properly learnable? We first demonstrate that when the unlabeled data distribution is given, there always exists an optimal proper learner governed by distributional regularization, a randomized generalization of regularization. We refer to this setting as the distribution-fixed PAC model, and continue to evaluate the learner on its worst-case performance over all distributions. Our result holds for all metric loss functions and any finite learning problem (with no dependence on its size). Further, we demonstrate that sample complexities in the distribution-fixed PAC model can shrink by only a logarithmic factor from the classic PAC model, strongly refuting the role of unlabeled data in PAC learning (from a worst-case perspective). We complement this with impossibility results which obstruct any characterization of proper learnability in the realizable PAC model. First, we observe that there are problems whose proper learnability is logically undecidable, i.e., independent of the ZFC axioms. We then show that proper learnability is not a monotone property of the underlying hypothesis class, and that it is not a local property (in a precise sense). Our impossibility results all hold even for the fundamental setting of multiclass classification, and go through a reduction of EMX learning (Ben-David et al., 2019) to proper classification which may be of independent interest.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Feb 2025.

Builds on

16 of 42 references.

References · 16

  1. 2015The Optimal Sample Complexity of PAC Learningcited by 72
  2. 2022A Characterization of Multiclass Learnabilitycited by 66
  3. 2014Optimal Learners for Multiclass Problemscited by 65
  4. 2020Proper Learning, Helly Number, and an Optimal SVM Boundcited by 52
  5. 2022Bagging is an Optimal PAC Learnercited by 34
  6. 2024Majority-of-Three: The Simplest Optimal Learner?cited by 17
  7. 2022On characterizations of learnability with computable learnerscited by 16
  8. 2023Regularization and Optimal Multiclass Learningcited by 15
  9. 2019When can unlabeled data improve the learning rate?cited by 14
  10. 2023On Computable Online Learningcited by 12
  11. 2023Find a witness or shatter: the landscape of computable PAC learningcited by 10
  12. 2024On the Computability of Robust PAC Learningcited by 6
4 more
  1. 2021From Undecidability of Non-Triviality and Finiteness to Undecidability of Learnabilitycited by 4
  2. 2023Do PAC-Learners Learn the Marginal Distribution?cited by 3
  3. 2024Understanding Aggregations of Proper Learners in Multiclass Classificationcited by 3
  4. 2024Transductive Learning Is Compactcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.