Syed Izhan Khilji | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

The Geometry of Randomized Smoothing on Feasible Sets

Randomized smoothing certifies the probability of a fixed output event as the center of Gaussian noise moves. Feasibility or confidence filtering reports label probabilities only among retained proposals, producing a ratio. Its numerator is a fixed Gaussian event mass, while its denominator is the probability of retention and can change with the center. Substituting this ratio into the ordinary smoothing formula can therefore certify a ball that contains a decision boundary. We separate the problem into a geometric question and a certification question. Geometry determines when conditioning preserves Gaussian comparisons. Convex retained sets preserve the full comparison, while general sets require geometric control of the retained law as the center moves. Without such control, conditional probabilities imply no positive universal radius. Joint retention-and-label probabilities always yield a valid certificate for the same filtered predictor. A uniform covariance bound transfers divergence certificates to the retained law and can yield larger radii even when the Gaussian event comparison fails. Both methods admit finite-sample bounds. For a learned image classifier with a training-selected nonconvex filter, conditional Rényi bounds certify more images than joint-mass bounds without additional model evaluations. A released confidence filter exhibits verified label changes inside radii obtained by conditional substitution. An application of adaptive Gaussian composition covers causal finite-horizon executions with history-dependent center shifts under a pathwise energy bound.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Incentives and Evidence in Learned Service Orchestration

Reinforcement learning for service orchestration has been the subject of sustained research for over a decade, yet it is not used in production at scale. The usual explanation is that learned controllers degrade under delayed and noisy telemetry, workload shifts, and uncontrolled tenants. We test whether existing evidence supports that explanation. We evaluate three highly influential RL-based orchestration systems spanning resource allocation, DAG scheduling, and autoscaling, using pre-registered predictions about comparative degradation under production-relevant perturbations and paired inference with family-wise error correction. Across the tests, most predicted performance reversals do not occur. Diagnostic analyses show that these outcomes often reflect comparator collapse, artefact limitations, or evaluation choices rather than evidence that learned controllers tolerate the perturbations. One apparent advantage under observation lag is roughly fortyfold compared to a Kubernetes HPA-equivalent controller. Another widely cited result cannot be reconstructed from its released artefact, and the strongest reproducible margin is far smaller than the published results. Conclusions also reverse under changes in perturbation magnitude and evaluation mode. Based on these results and broader patterns in the literature, we identify an institutional problem. Publication and review incentives favour benchmark gains against convenient comparators, even when those gains provide little evidence of deployment performance. We argue that the problem is not solely technical. Rather, it is institutional, so learned orchestration needs production-grade comparators, registered perturbation models, separate operational metrics, and publication criteria that reward reproducible operational evidence. Without these changes, the literature can grow without establishing whether learning improves orchestration.

cs.DC↗