Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Learning Algorithm Generalization Error Bounds via Auxiliary Distributions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2210.00483 v2 pith:SRDHYNXY submitted 2022-10-02 cs.LG cs.ITmath.ITstat.ML

classification cs.LGcs.ITmath.ITstat.ML
keywords boundsalphalearningupperdistributiongeneralizationauxiliaryerror
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Generalization error bounds are essential for comprehending how well machine learning models work. In this work, we suggest a novel method, i.e., the Auxiliary Distribution Method, that leads to new upper bounds on expected generalization errors that are appropriate for supervised learning scenarios. We show that our general upper bounds can be specialized under some conditions to new bounds involving the $\alpha$-Jensen-Shannon, $\alpha$-R\'enyi ($0< \alpha < 1$) information between a random variable modeling the set of training samples and another random variable modeling the set of hypotheses. Our upper bounds based on $\alpha$-Jensen-Shannon information are also finite. Additionally, we demonstrate how our auxiliary distribution method can be used to derive the upper bounds on excess risk of some learning algorithms in the supervised learning context {\blue and the generalization error under the distribution mismatch scenario in supervised learning algorithms, where the distribution mismatch is modeled as $\alpha$-Jensen-Shannon or $\alpha$-R\'enyi divergence between the distribution of test and training data samples distributions.} We also outline the conditions for which our proposed upper bounds might be tighter than other earlier upper bounds.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Subgroups Matter for Robust Bias Mitigation

    cs.LG 2025-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Subgroup choice determines whether bias mitigation helps or hurts, and the minimum KL divergence to the unbiased test distribution predicts success.

Pith tools