PAC Learning with Improvements
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
One of the most basic lower bounds in machine learning is that in nearly any nontrivial setting, it takes textitat least 1/ε samples to learn to error ε (and more, if the classifier being learned is complex). However, suppose that data points are agents who have the ability to improve by a small amount if doing so will allow them to receive a (desired) positive classification. In that case, we may actually be able to achieve textitzero error by just being "close enough". For example, imagine a hiring test used to measure an agent's skill at some job such that for some threshold θ, agents who score above θ will be successful and those who score below θ will not (i.e., learning a threshold on the line). Suppose also that by putting in effort, agents can improve their skill level by some small amount r. In that case, if we learn an approximation hatθ of θ such that θ ≤ hatθ ≤ θ + r and use it for hiring, we can actually achieve error zero, in the sense that (a) any agent classified as positive is truly qualified, and (b) any agent who truly is qualified can be classified as positive by putting in effort. Thus, the ability for agents to improve has the potential to allow for a goal one could not hope to achieve in standard models, namely zero error. In this paper, we explore this phenomenon more broadly, giving general results and examining under what conditions the ability of agents to improve can allow for a reduction in the sample complexity of learning, or alternatively, can make learning harder. We also examine both theoretically and empirically what kinds of improvement-aware algorithms can take into account agents who have the ability to improve to a limited extent when it is in their interest to do so.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 36 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Mar 2025.
Builds on
36 of 61 references.
References · 36
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,415
- 2019Certified Adversarial Robustness via Randomized Smoothingcited by 1,340
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
- 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 257
- 2021A survey on datasets for fairness-aware machine learningcited by 157
- 2017Strategic Classification from Revealed Preferencescited by 128
- 2021Machine Learning with a Reject Option: A surveycited by 109
- 2018The Social Cost of Strategic Classificationcited by 105
- 2019Strategic Classification is Causal Modeling in Disguisecited by 92
- 2018How Do Classifiers Induce Agents To Invest Effort Strategically?cited by 83
- 2019VC Classes are Adversarially Robustly Learnable, but Only Improperlycited by 83
- 2018The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulationcited by 75
24 more
- 2020Causal Strategic Linear Regressioncited by 65
- 2021Who Leads and Who Follows in Strategic Classification?cited by 53
- 2020PAC-Learning for Strategic Classificationcited by 50
- 2020The Strategic Perceptroncited by 48
- 2020Maximizing Welfare with Incentive-Aware Evaluation Mechanismscited by 46
- 2020The Role of Randomness and Noise in Strategic Classificationcited by 40
- 2020Reducing Adversarially Robust Learning to Non-Robust PAC Learningcited by 28
- 2022On classification of strategic agents who can both game and improvecited by 27
- 2021Adversarially Robust Learning with Unknown Perturbation Setscited by 24
- 2018PAC-learning in the presence of evasion adversariescited by 23
- 2018Improved Generalization Bounds for Adversarially Robust Learningcited by 22
- 2022Learning Losses for Strategic Classificationcited by 22
- 2022Robustly-reliable learners under poisoning attackscited by 20
- 2024Learnability Gaps of Strategic Classificationcited by 16
- 2022A Characterization of Semi-Supervised Adversarially-Robust PAC Learnabilitycited by 13
- 2020An Analysis of Robustness of Non-Lipschitz Networkscited by 12
- 2020Noise in Classificationcited by 11
- 2023Reliable learning in challenging environmentscited by 10
- 2022Adversarially Robust Learning with Tolerancecited by 9
- 2022Adversarially Robust PAC Learnability of Real-Valued Functionscited by 8
- 2022Setting Fair Incentives to Maximize Improvementcited by 7
- 2022On Proper Learnability between Average- and Worst-case Robustnesscited by 5
- 2024Regularized Robustly Reliable Learners and Instance Targeted Attackscited by 5
- 2025Simplifying Adversarially Robust PAC Learning with Tolerancecited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.
6 papers.
- 2025On Learning Verifiers and Implications to Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 6
- 2025On The Statistical Limits of Self-Improving Agentscited by 5
- 2025Conservative classifiers do consistently well with improving agents: characterizing statistical and online learningcited by 2
- 2026Revealing Positive and Negative Role Models to Help People Make Good Decisionscited by 1
- 2026Online Learning with Improving Agents: Multiclass, Budgeted Agents and Bandit Learnerscited by 0
- 2026Linear Strategic Classification with Endogenous Improvementscited by 0
- 2026Linear Strategic Classification with Endogenous Improvements31 May 2026
- 2026Revealing Positive and Negative Role Models to Help People Make Good Decisions3 Mar 2026
- 2026Online Learning with Improving Agents: Multiclass, Budgeted Agents and Bandit Learners19 Feb 2026
- 2025On The Statistical Limits of Self-Improving Agents5 Oct 2025
- 2025Conservative classifiers do consistently well with improving agents: characterizing statistical and online learning5 Jun 2025
- 2025On Learning Verifiers and Implications to Chain-of-Thought Reasoning28 May 2025