Probabilistic graphical models (PGMs) compactly encode structured joint distributions, but Most Probable Explanation (MPE), which finds the highest-probability assignment to unobserved variables, remains computationally intractable in large, densely structured models. Anytime systematic search, such as branch-and-bound (B&B), is a popular approach, but its efficiency depends on tight admissible upper bounds that are often prohibitively expensive to compute using classical methods like Mini-Bucket Elimination (MBE). We introduce Learning to Bound (L2B), a data-driven framework that amortizes bound computation cost by training a neural predictor. L2B targets two key properties required for effective search bounds: admissibility, which is achieved via statistical calibration techniques, and progressive tightening as evidence accumulates, which is enforced through structural architectural constraints that ensure monotonicity by construction. Across challenging benchmarks, L2B delivers tighter, monotonic bounds at orders-of-magnitude lower cost on every PGM family, and yields measurable improvements when integrated with branch-and-bound on high-treewidth instances.
In multi-output structured prediction tasks, while only one ground truth label may be provided in the training data, multiple equally valid outputs may be possible, making reliable evaluation a persistent challenge. We postulate that human evaluators implicitly use task-specific invariants, e.g., object boundaries in colorized images or named entities in translations, to judge if an output is acceptable. Under this assumption, we introduce a notion of approximate task-specific invariants and use them as diagnostic tools to evaluate a variety of existing metrics for vision and language tasks. We use these task invariants as part of a framework to systematically test metric reliability by encouraging domain-relevant invariants in model outputs via an augmented loss function. In our experiments, we observe that enforcing invariants with an augmented loss yields substantial improvements in popular distributional metrics while more traditional metrics change only marginally. Through this invariants-driven evaluation, we expose where standard metrics fail to detect meaningful differences, and we highlight the conditions under which distributional metrics succeed or still fall short.