Fast Agnostic Learners in the Plane
Talya Eden, Ludmila Glinskih, and Sofya Raskhodnikova

TL;DR
This paper develops efficient algorithms for agnostic learning of geometric shapes like triangles and convex polygons in the plane, improving previous time bounds and connecting learning with computational geometry techniques.
Contribution
It introduces proper agnostic learners with optimal or improved time complexity for geometric classes, including triangles, convex polygons, and convex sets, using geometry-based algorithms.
Findings
Achieved optimal sample complexity for triangle learning.
Reduced running time for 4-gons and 5-gons compared to previous algorithms.
Provided proper agnostic learners for convex sets with improved time bounds.
Abstract
We investigate the computational efficiency of agnostic learning for several fundamental geometric concept classes in the plane. While the sample complexity of agnostic learning is well understood, its time complexity has received much less attention. We study the class of triangles and, more generally, the class of convex polygons with vertices for small , as well as the class of convex sets in a square. We present a proper agnostic learner for the class of triangles that has optimal sample complexity and runs in time , improving on the algorithm of Dobkin and Gunopulos (COLT `95) that runs in time . For 4-gons and 5-gons, we improve the running time from , achieved by Fischer and Kwek (eCOLT `96), to and , respectively. We also design a proper…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Conference Withdrawn Submission
The paper’s main strengths lie in its **theoretical depth and clarity of contribution**. It makes substantial progress by improving the runtime of classical geometric agnostic learners that had remained unimproved for nearly three decades. The exposition is clear and well-organized, with helpful tables and a precise comparison to prior work. The focus on **proper learners** makes the results highly relevant for applications such as tolerant property testing, where structural consistency matters.
The main limitations of the paper are its **restricted scope and lack of generalization**. The analysis is confined to two-dimensional geometric concept classes, and it is unclear how well the techniques would scale to higher dimensions, where the combinatorial structure of convex shapes grows exponentially. In addition, the paper does not establish formal **lower bounds** or optimality results, leaving open whether the improved runtimes are truly close to the best achievable. The algorithms als
The contribution is solid. The ideas are explained well, and the paper is well written.
I'm not sure the audience will be extremely interested in this paper. AI these days can talk, prove theorems, write code, improve its own code, and much more. Therefore, the bar for publishing these kind of classic results has gone up in general AI conferences.
* The paper is fairly well written, and the presentation is generally clear. Although I did not verify all the proofs in detail, they appear to be sound overall. * The problem setting is interesting and well-motivated. * The improvement in computational efficiency compared with prior work is nontrivial.
* In Section 1.1, I appreciate the effort to provide a technical overview of your approaches to learning both $k$-gons and convex sets, as well as to highlight the differences between your methods and prior work. However, many technical terms are introduced before they are defined. For instance, what do “reference family,” “reference halfplanes,” “hypothesis construction,” “halfplanes induced by pairs of points,” and “triangle range-counting data structure” mean? While these concepts become clea
Note that I do not have any experience in computational geometry (CG), and it seems that most of the proof techniques involved rely on recent and prior data structures or algorithms in CG. I do not have any intuition as to whether these algorithms will work for the tasks at hand, or if they are reasonable tools for the job. Therefore, I cannot feasibly check most of the proofs given the constrained reviewing period. That being said, I did enjoy reading and learning about the area through the pa
My only major concern is whether the audience of ICLR would find this work interesting, or if it should be submitted to a more learning theory oriented conference such as COLT / ALT or a computational geometry conference. I don’t have a strong opinion either way, but I can see the authors of the submitted paper getting less engagement from the ICLR audience (speaking from personal experience). I believe that the authors have attempted to connect their work to more relevant topics via the “prope
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMachine Learning and Algorithms · Topological and Geometric Data Analysis · Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs
