Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Tomasz Steifer

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

5 papers
2 author rows

Possible papers

5

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Computable universal online learning

  • Dariusz Kalociński
  • Tomasz Steifer

Understanding when learning is possible is a fundamental task in the theory of machine learning. However, many characterizations known from the literature deal with abstract learning as a mathematical object and ignore the crucial question: when can learning be implemented as a computer program? We address this question for universal online learning, a generalist theoretical model of online binary classification, recently characterized by Bousquet et al. (STOC 2021). In this model, there is no hypothesis fixed in advance; instead, Adversary—playing the role of Nature—can change their mind as long as local consistency with the given class of hypotheses is maintained. We require Learner to achieve a finite number of mistakes while using a strategy that can be implemented as a computer program. We show that universal online learning does not imply computable universal online learning, even if the class of hypotheses is relatively easy from a computability-theoretic perspective. We then study the agnostic variant of computable universal online learning and provide an exact characterization of classes that are learnable in this sense. We also consider a variant of proper universal online learning and show exactly when it is possible. Together, our results give a more realistic perspective on the existing theory of online binary classification and the related problem of inductive inference.

ICML Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Ehrenfeucht-Haussler Rank and Chain of Thought

  • Pablo Barceló
  • Alexander Kozachinskiy
  • Tomasz Steifer

The notion of rank of a Boolean function has been a cornerstone in PAC learning, enabling quasipolynomial-time learning algorithms for polynomial-size decision trees. We present a novel characterization of rank, grounded in the well-known Transformer architecture. We show that the rank of a function $f$ corresponds to the minimum number of Chain of Thought (CoT) steps required by a single-layer Transformer with hard attention to compute $f$. Based on this characterization we establish tight bounds on the number of CoT steps required for specific problems, showing that $\ell$-fold function composition necessitates exactly $\ell$ CoT steps. Furthermore, we analyze the problem of identifying the position of the $k$-th occurrence of 1 in a Boolean sequence, proving that it requires $k$ CoT steps.

AAAI Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Optimal Bounds for Dissatisfaction in Perpetual Voting

  • Alexander Kozachinskiy
  • Alexander Shen
  • Tomasz Steifer

In perpetual voting, multiple decisions are made at different moments in time. Taking the history of previous decisions into account allows us to satisfy properties such as proportionality over periods of time. In this paper, we consider the following question: is there a perpetual approval voting method that guarantees that no voter is dissatisfied too many times? We identify a sufficient condition on voter behavior ---which we call 'bounded conflicts' condition---under which a sublinear growth of dissatisfaction is possible. We provide a tight upper bound on the growth of dissatisfaction under bounded conflicts, using techniques from Kolmogorov complexity. We also observe that the approval voting with binary choices mimics the machine learning setting of prediction with expert advice. This allows us to present a voting method with sublinear guarantees on dissatisfaction under bounded conflicts, based on the standard techniques from prediction with expert advice.

NeurIPS Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Strassen Attention, Split VC Dimension and Compositionality in Transformers

  • Alexander Kozachinskiy
  • Felipe Urrutia
  • Hector Orellana
  • Tomasz Steifer
  • Germán Pizarro
  • Matías Fuentes
  • Francisco Meza Vásquez
  • Cristian Buc Calderon

We propose the first method to show theoretical limitations for one-layer softmax transformers with arbitrarily many precision bits (even infinite). We establish those limitations for three tasks that require advanced reasoning. The first task, Match 3 (Sanford et al. , 2023), requires looking at all possible token triplets in an input sequence. The second and third tasks address compositionality-based reasoning: function composition (Peng et al. , 2024) and binary relations composition, respectively. We formally prove the inability of one-layer softmax Transformers to solve any of these tasks. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Strassen attention and prove that, equipped with this mechanism, a one-layer transformer can in principle solve all these tasks. Importantly, we show that it enjoys sub-cubic running-time complexity, making it more scalable than similar previously proposed mechanisms, such as higher-order attention (Sanford et al. , 2023). To complement our theoretical findings, we experimentally studied Strassen attention and compared it against standard (Vaswani et al, 2017), higher-order attention (Sanford et al. , 2023), and triangular attention (Bergen et al. 2021). Our results help to disentangle all these attention mechanisms, highlighting their strengths and limitations. In particular, Strassen attention outperforms standard attention significantly on all the tasks. Altogether, understanding the theoretical limitations can guide research towards scalable attention mechanisms that improve the reasoning abilities of Transformers.

ECAI Conference 2023 Conference Paper

No Agreement Without Loss: Learning and Social Choice in Peer Review

  • Pablo Barceló
  • Mauricio Duarte
  • Cristobal Rojas
  • Tomasz Steifer

In peer review systems, reviewers are often asked to evaluate various features of submissions, such as technical quality or novelty. A score is given to each of the predefined features and based on these the reviewer has to provide an overall quantitative recommendation. It may be assumed that each reviewer has her own mapping from the set of features to a recommendation, and that different reviewers have different mappings in mind. This introduces an element of arbitrariness known as commensuration bias. In this paper we discuss a framework, introduced by Noothigattu, Shah and Procaccia, and then applied by the organizers of the AAAI 2022 conference. Noothigattu, Shah and Procaccia proposed to aggregate reviewer’s mapping by minimizing certain loss functions, and studied axiomatic properties of this approach, in the sense of social choice theory. We challenge several of the results and assumptions used in their work and report a number of negative results. On the one hand, we study a trade-off between some of the axioms proposed and the ability of the method to properly capture agreements of the majority of reviewers. On the other hand, we show that dropping a certain unrealistic assumption has dramatic effects, including causing the method to be discontinuous.

v2026.09.13