Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Generalization Bounds on Optimal Control for Transformer Training and Wasserstein Distributional Robustness

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Finite-sample generalization for Transformers follows from Lipschitz stability of a measure-valued control problem plus Wasserstein concentration.

desk verdict Clean finite-sample excess-risk and Wasserstein-DRO package on top of the authors’ prior doubly-lifted Transformer MDP; the math holds under compactness, but it is DP/norm-constrained training, not SGD. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27975 v1 pith:6QAXISV7 submitted 2026-07-30 cs.LG math.OC

Kağan Akman , Naci Saldi , Serdar Yüksel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGmath.OC MSC 93E2068T0790C1749Q2249L2060B1049J45
keywords TransformersgeneralizationboundsMarkovdecisionprocessesconcentrationinequalitiesdistributionallyrobustcontrolWassersteindistancedynamicprogramming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper treats Transformer training as a finite-horizon optimal-control problem on doubly lifted probability measures: data sets become laws on pairs of empirical input–output measures, and layer weights become controls. By quantizing state, action, and measure-state spaces, the authors obtain an explicit high-probability excess-risk bound that scales like one over square root of sample size, driven by a Lipschitz estimate for the value function and a concentration inequality for empirical laws on a finite metric space. The bound is transferred back to the original model at the price of an explicit quantization error that vanishes in a prescribed regime. The same geometry yields a Wasserstein distributionally robust control formulation whose minimizers inherit the same rates. A sympathetic reader cares because the architecture’s built-in dependence on empirical token measures is turned into a concrete robustness statement rather than a generic hypothesis-class capacity argument.

What carries the argument

The doubly-lifted value function V(P,U)=∫ W_{2,λ}(Φ^T(μ,U),ν)^2 P(dμ dν), which is Lipschitz in the W1 metric on laws of input–output measure pairs; that Lipschitz constant converts empirical-measure concentration into generalization and robust-control bounds.

What would settle it

Run the paper’s dynamic-programming training scheme inside a fixed compact weight set on growing sample sizes; if the observed excess risk fails to track the claimed O(K_r^{-1/2}) term plus the stated vanishing quantization errors, the central bound is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under compactness, the empirical dynamic-programming minimizer on the triply quantized doubly-lifted model satisfies, with probability at least 1−δ, an excess risk of order 2Lρ where ρ is an explicit Wasserstein concentration radius depending on sample size and the diameter of the finite space; the same policy on the base model incurs that term plus explicit quantization errors α and β that vanish when measure quantization, state resolution, action resolution, and sample size are sent to infinity in the right order; robust minimizers over Wasserstein balls share the same rates.

Load-bearing premise

The particle state space and the entire space of layer weights must be compact, which the authors note means the analysis covers norm-constrained training rather than unconstrained gradient descent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Once quantization levels and confidence are fixed, the quantized model supplies an explicit non-vacuous sample-complexity expression of order 1/sqrt(|Z_{ℓ,n}|).
  • Robust minimizers over Wasserstein balls around the empirical law inherit the same excess-risk rates as ordinary training minimizers.
  • As the ambiguity radius shrinks with sample size, the robust objective Γ-converges to ordinary training and the robust-minimizer sets upper-limit into the set of training minimizers.
  • Depth T enters the final bound both as an explicit √T from action quantization and exponentially through the Lipschitz constant of the Transformer flow.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same lift–quantize–concentrate template could give finite-sample guarantees for other mean-field architectures whose token updates depend on empirical measures.
  • Replacing hard compactness by an explicit weight-norm penalty inside the cost would bring the analysis closer to practical unconstrained training while keeping the Lipschitz route.
  • The state-covering term that produces the curse of dimensionality suggests that non-vacuous practical bounds will need architecture-specific structure beyond generic finite-metric covering numbers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies generalization for Transformers trained by dynamic programming on the doubly lifted measure-valued model of Akman–Saldı–Yüksel. Data sets are treated as laws on pairs of empirical input–output measures, so training is a finite-horizon MDP. After quantizing state, action, and measure-state spaces, the authors prove an explicit excess-risk bound for the empirical DP minimizer via McDiarmid concentration of W1 on the finite space Z_{ℓ,n} and a uniform Lipschitz estimate for the value function (Theorem 3.3). The bound is transferred to the unquantized model at the cost of explicit quantization errors (Theorem 4.4). The same Lipschitz machinery yields a Wasserstein distributionally robust control formulation, existence of robust minimizers, Γ-convergence / Painlevé–Kuratowski links to ordinary training minimizers, and matching finite-sample rates for robust policies (Section 5).

Significance. The work gives a coherent control-theoretic route to Transformer generalization that is not based on hypothesis-class capacity (VC, Rademacher, covering numbers). The finite-sample statements are explicit in K_r, quantization parameters, and Wasserstein geometry, and the DRO reformulation cleanly links generalization to adversarial perturbation of the data law. Strengths include carefully written concentration-plus-stability algebra, uniform-in-quantization Lipschitz constants for V, and honest acknowledgment that the setting is norm-constrained DP training rather than unconstrained SGD. If the companion model paper is accepted as standard, this is a solid theoretical contribution at the interface of optimal control, optimal transport, and deep learning theory. The practical reach is limited by compactness of U, combinatorial |Z_{ℓ,n}|, and exponential-in-T factors.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2–§4, Lemmata 2.3–2.5, 4.3] Core analytic ingredients—joint continuity of V (Lemma 2.3), the measure-flow Lipschitz constant L_Φ (Lemma 2.4 / [1, Cor. 19]), and several quantization error controls used in Lemma 4.3—are cited from the companion preprint [1] without restating hypotheses or proof outlines. For a standalone journal article the load-bearing statements (at least the precise statement of L_Φ, the W_{2,λ} quantization errors of Q_n and R_ℓ, and the measurable-selection result that supplies optimal open-loop policies) should be reproduced or proved in an appendix so that Theorems 3.3 and 4.4 can be checked without the companion.
  2. [Assumption 2.1; Abstract; §1; Theorem 4.4; Remark 4.7] Assumption 2.1 (compact S and U, forward invariance) is load-bearing for every Lipschitz constant (L, B_T, L_Φ^T), for existence of robust minimizers (Prop. 5.1), and for finite diameters in McDiarmid. The paper correctly notes in the Conclusion that this is norm-constrained DP training, not unconstrained SGD, but the abstract and introduction still frame the results as generalization bounds for “Transformers trained with dynamic programming recursions” without early, prominent qualification. The main claims should be scoped explicitly to compact action spaces from the outset, and the exponential-in-T growth of L and B_T (Remark 4.7) should appear in the statement of Theorem 4.4 or an immediate remark.
  3. [Assumption 4.2; Remark 4.5; Theorem 4.4] Assumption 4.2 and Remark 4.5 require K_r ≳ |Z_{ℓ,n}| log(1/δ) with |Z_{ℓ,n}| = binom(ℓ+|X_n|-1, |X_n|-1)^2 and |X_n| ∼ N n^{d/2}. Under any regime that drives the quantization errors α_{ℓ,n}, β_{ℓ,n,m} → 0, the sample lower bound is combinatorial in the covering size. The paper should add a short, quantitative discussion of whether there exist concrete (N,d,T,n,ℓ,m,K_r) tuples for which the right-hand side of Theorem 4.4 is strictly smaller than the trivial diameter bound on V; otherwise the finite-sample claim is formally correct but potentially vacuous for all implementable quantizations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1.1] Figure 1.1 is helpful but the arrow labels are dense; a short caption sentence listing the three operations (particle→measure, measure→law on data sets, triple quantization) would improve readability.
  2. [§1.3; §3.1] Notation switches between V(P,U), V^{ℓ,n}, V^n and between W_1 and W_1^{ℓ,n}; a single notation table (or an expanded §1.3) would reduce cognitive load.
  3. [Lemma 3.2] In Lemma 3.2 Step-2 the total-variation bound E W_1 ≤ D E∥·∥_{TV} is standard but the factor 1/2 in front of the ℓ1 sum should be flagged as coming from ∥μ−ν∥_{TV} = (1/2)∑|p_i−q_i| so that the subsequent Cauchy–Schwarz step is transparent.
  4. [References] Several arXiv identifiers in the bibliography (including the companion [1] and related Transformer-control works) appear with 2026 dates; ensure final citation keys and DOIs are updated at camera-ready.
  5. [Front matter; passim] Typographical: “F unding” in the footnote; occasional missing spaces before citations; “data set” / “dataset” inconsistency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Load-bearing self-citation of authors' prior doubly-lifted MDP paper supplies the model and continuity/Lipschitz blocks; the excess-risk and DRO theorems are non-tautological concentration arguments, not definitional restatements.

  1. self citation load bearing [§2 (doubly lifted model); Lemma 2.3; Lemma 2.4]
    "Building on the doubly lifted, measure-valued formulation of Transformer dynamics [1]... Lemma 2.3. [1, Lemma 15] Under Assumption 2.1, the value function V is jointly continuous on P(Z)×U^T. Lemma 2.4. [1, Corollary 19] For any μ,ν∈P(X)^K and U∈U, we have ∑_k W_{2,λ}(Φ(μ^k,U),Φ(ν^k,U)) ≤ L_Φ ∑_k W_{2,λ}(μ^k,ν^k)."

    The entire controlled dynamics, the value function V, its joint continuity, and the flow Lipschitz constant L_Φ that feed every later bound (Lemmata 2.5, 4.1; Theorems 3.3, 4.4, 5.3–5.5) are imported from the overlapping-author paper [1] rather than re-derived. This is load-bearing self-citation for the premise, not a by-construction identity of the generalization claims themselves.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: doubly-lifted Transformer MDP from [1] → joint continuity of V and measure-flow Lipschitz L_Φ from [1] → new uniform Lipschitz of V in W1 (Lemma 2.5, proved here) → McDiarmid/TV concentration on the finite quantized space (Prop. 3.1, Lemma 3.2) → excess-risk algebra for the empirical DP minimizer (Thm 3.3) → quantization-error transfer (Lemma 4.3, Thm 4.4) and parallel DRO/Γ-convergence arguments (Sec. 5). There is no self-definitional loop, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem forbidding alternatives, and no ansatz smuggled in as a forced form. The only circularity-adjacent pattern is ordinary sequential self-citation: the model, existence of optimal policies, joint continuity of V, and L_Φ are taken from the overlapping-author preprint [1]. Those citations are load-bearing for the setup, but the central finite-sample claims are independent applications of standard concentration and triangle inequalities once the Lipschitz constants are granted. Score 2 reflects that foundation dependence without elevating normal prior-work reuse to definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper is a theorem paper: load-bearing structure is compactness of S and U, the doubly-lifted dynamics and Lipschitz facts from [1], Wasserstein geometry, and a quantization/sample-size regime that keeps covering numbers under control. No data-fitted constants. Invented structure is the triply quantized doubly-lifted training MDP and its ambiguity sets—definitions, not physical entities.

free parameters (3)
  • positional enforcement constant λ > 0
    Chosen large enough so W_{2,λ} prioritizes matching positional encodings; affects the metric geometry of all bounds but is not fitted to data.
  • quantization rates (n, ℓ, m) and sample size K_r
    Must satisfy Assumption 4.2 (ℓ ≫ √|X_n|, K_r ≳ |Z_{ℓ,n}| log(1/δ)) for non-vacuous transfer; free design parameters of the proof regime.
  • ambiguity radius ρ (or ρ_r^{ℓ,n}(δ))
    Either chosen or set from the concentration quantile; controls the DRO ball and the additive 2Lρ term.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption S and U compact; Transformer dynamics forward-invariant on S^N (Assumption 2.1)
    Used for existence of minimizers, metrizability/compactness of P(X) and P(Z), and all uniform Lipschitz constants.
  • domain assumption Doubly-lifted measure dynamics Φ, value V, and L_Φ-Lipschitz stability of Φ hold as in [1]
    Lemma 2.3–2.4 and the training DP (2.7) are imported; new bounds sit on top of that model.
  • domain assumption Activation σ is 1-Lipschitz; attention kernel well-defined with denominator bounded away from zero on compact sets
    Needed for joint continuity of f and the explicit L_f / L_Φ formulae in Remark 4.8.
  • standard math i.i.d. sampling of sequences from a fixed law P ∈ P(Z); empirical doubly-lifted law concentrates in W1
    McDiarmid plus finite-space total-variation bound give Proposition 3.1 and Lemma 3.2.
  • standard math Kantorovich–Rubinstein duality for W1 on compact P(Z)
    Converts cost Lipschitzness into |V(P,U)−V(Q,U)| ≤ L W1(P,Q) (Lemma 2.5).
  • ad hoc to paper Quantized measure reconstruction R_ℓ of Reznik and hard state quantizer Q_n with controlled W_{2,λ} error ρ_{ℓ,n}
    Defines the triply quantized MDP on which concentration is elementary; transfer error α,β depend on this scheme.
invented entities (2)
  • Triply quantized doubly-lifted Transformer MDP (Z_{ℓ,n}, U_m, Φ^{ℓ,n}, V^{ℓ,n})
    purpose: Finite surrogate on which explicit concentration and DP excess-risk bounds are proved before transfer.
    Constructed by quantizing X, U, and P(X); not an external physical object. Independent evidence is mathematical only (consistency as n,ℓ,m→∞ under Assumption 4.2).
  • Wasserstein ambiguity sets A_ρ(P_r) on laws of input–output empirical-measure pairs
    purpose: Cast generalization as distributionally robust control / zero-sum game against prior misspecification.
    Standard WDRO idea applied at the doubly-lifted level; falsifiable only insofar as the resulting robust policies could be compared empirically (not done here).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalization Bounds on Optimal Control for Transformer Training and Wasserstein Distributional Robustness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6QAXISV7

@misc{pith2026260727975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalization Bounds on Optimal Control for Transformer Training and Wasserstein Distributional Robustness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6QAXISV7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27975}
}
read the original abstract

We derive finite-sample generalization bounds for Transformers trained with dynamic programming recursions. Building on the doubly lifted, measure-valued formulation of Transformer dynamics, we view data sets as probability laws on pairs of empirical input-output measures, allowing us to interpret the training problem as a finite-horizon Markovian control problem. We then analyze a quantized model, derived by quantizing the state, action, and measure-state spaces, and derive explicit finite-sample generalization bounds using concentration inequalities for empirical laws on finite metric spaces together with a Lipschitz stability estimate for the value function. These bounds are transferred to the base model at the cost of an explicit approximation error. Finally, we show that the same machinery yields a distributionally robust control formulation of the training problem, connecting Transformer generalization to Wasserstein distributionally robust optimization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27975 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Akman, N

    K. Akman, N. Saldı, and S. Yüksel,An optimal control approach to Transformer training, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.09571, (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    C. D. Aliprantis and K. C. Border,Infinite dimensional analysis: a hitchhiker’s guide, Springer, 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    P. L. Bartlett,The sample complexity of pattern classification with neural networks: the size of the weights is more important than the size of the network, IEEE transactions on Information Theory, 44 (1998), pp. 525–536

    1998

  4. [4]

    P. L. Bartlett, D. J. Foster, and M. J. Telgarsky,Spectrally-normalized margin bounds for neural networks, Advances in neural information processing systems, 30 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    P. L. Bartlett, N. Harvey, C. Liaw, and A. Mehrabian,Nearly-tight vc-dimension and pseudodimension bounds for piecewise linear neural networks, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20 (2019), pp. 1–17

    2019

  6. [6]

    P. L. Bartlett and S. Mendelson,Rademacher and gaussian complexities: Risk bounds and structural results, Journal of machine learning research, 3 (2002), pp. 463–482

    2002

  7. [7]

    Blanchet and K

    J. Blanchet and K. Murthy,Quantifying distributional model risk via optimal transport, Mathematics of Operations Research, 44 (2019), pp. 565–600

    2019

  8. [8]

    Bousquet and A

    O. Bousquet and A. Elisseeff,Stability and generalization, Journal of machine learning research, 2 (2002), pp. 499–526

    2002

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Dal Maso,An introduction toΓ-convergence, vol

    G. Dal Maso,An introduction toΓ-convergence, vol. 8, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    De Giorgi and T

    E. De Giorgi and T. Franzoni,Su un tipo di convergenza variazionale, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali. Rendiconti, 58 (1975), pp. 842–850

    1975

  3. [11]

    E,A proposal on machine learning via dynamical systems, Communications in Mathematics and Statistics, 5 (2017), pp

    W. E,A proposal on machine learning via dynamical systems, Communications in Mathematics and Statistics, 5 (2017), pp. 1–11

    2017

  4. [12]

    W. E, J. Han, and Q. Li,A mean-field optimal control formulation of deep learning, Research in the Mathematical Sciences, 6 (2019), pp. 1–41

    2019

  5. [13]

    B. L. Edelman, S. Goel, S. Kakade, and C. Zhang,Inductive biases and variable creation in self-attention mechanisms, in International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2022, pp. 5793–5831

    2022

  6. [14]

    Fournier and A

    N. Fournier and A. Guillin,On the rate of convergence in wasserstein distance of the empirical measure, Probability theory and related fields, 162 (2015), pp. 707–738

    2015

  7. [15]

    Gao,Finite-sample guarantees for wasserstein distributionally robust optimization: Breaking the curse of dimensionality, Operations Research, 71 (2023), pp

    R. Gao,Finite-sample guarantees for wasserstein distributionally robust optimization: Breaking the curse of dimensionality, Operations Research, 71 (2023), pp. 2291–2306

    2023

  8. [16]

    Gao and A

    R. Gao and A. Kleywegt,Distributionally robust stochastic optimization with wasserstein distance, Mathematics of Operations Research, 48 (2023), pp. 603–655

    2023

  9. [17]

    Geshkovski, C

    B. Geshkovski, C. Letrouit, Y. Polyanskiy, and P. Rigollet,The emergence of clusters in self-attention dynamics, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36 (2023), pp. 57026–57037

    2023

  10. [18]

    Geshkovski, C

    B. Geshkovski, C. Letrouit, Y. Polyanskiy, and P. Rigollet,A mathematical perspective on Transformers, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 62 (2025), pp. 427–479

    2025

  11. [19]

    Golowich, A

    N. Golowich, A. Rakhlin, and O. Shamir,Size-independent sample complexity of neural networks, in Conference on learning theory, PMLR, 2018, pp. 297–299

    2018

  12. [20]

    Haber and L

    E. Haber and L. Ruthotto,Stable architectures for deep neural networks, Inverse problems, 34 (2018), p. 014004

    2018

  13. [21]

    Hernández-Lerma and J

    O. Hernández-Lerma and J. B. Lasserre,Discrete-time Markov control processes: basic optimality criteria, vol. 30, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    K. Kan, X. Li, B. Zhang, T. Sahai, S. Osher, and M. Katsoulakis,Optimal control for transformer architectures: Enhancing generalization, robustness and efficiency, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38 (2026), pp. 64183–64228

    2026

  15. [23]

    Lee and M

    J. Lee and M. Raginsky,Minimax statistical learning with wasserstein distances, Advances 24 in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Q. Li, L. Chen, C. Tai, et al.,Maximum principle based algorithms for deep learning, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18 (2018), pp. 1–29

    2018

  17. [25]

    Y. Li, T. Hu, Z. Lian, W. Tian, Y. Peng, H. Zhang, and Z. Li,Sharper generalization bounds for transformer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.21541, (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Liu and E

    G.-H. Liu and E. A. Theodorou,Deep learning theory review: An optimal control and dynamical systems perspective, arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10920, (2019)

    1908 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. A. McAllester,Pac-bayesian model averaging, in Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference on Computational learning theory, 1999, pp. 164–170

    1999

  20. [28]

    McDiarmid,On the method of bounded differences, Surveys in combinatorics, 141 (1989), pp

    C. McDiarmid,On the method of bounded differences, Surveys in combinatorics, 141 (1989), pp. 148–188

    1989

  21. [29]

    Mohajerin Esfahani and D

    P. Mohajerin Esfahani and D. Kuhn,Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations, Mathematical Programming, 171 (2018), pp. 115–166

    2018

  22. [30]

    Neyshabur, S

    B. Neyshabur, S. Bhojanapalli, and N. Srebro,A pac-bayesian approach to spectrally- normalized margin bounds for neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.09564, (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Neyshabur, R

    B. Neyshabur, R. Tomioka, and N. Srebro,Norm-based capacity control in neural networks, in Conference on learning theory, PMLR, 2015, pp. 1376–1401

    2015

  24. [32]

    Raginsky and B

    M. Raginsky and B. Recht,Separating geometry from probability in the analysis of general- ization, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.19560, (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y. A. Reznik,An algorithm for quantization of discrete probability distributions, in 2011 Data Compression Conference, IEEE, 2011, pp. 333–342. [34]R. T. Rockafellar and R. J. Wets,Variational analysis, Springer, 1998

    2011

  26. [35]

    Shafieezadeh-Abadeh, D

    S. Shafieezadeh-Abadeh, D. Kuhn, and P. M. Esfahani,Regularization via mass trans- portation, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20 (2019), pp. 1–68

    2019

  27. [36]

    Trauger and A

    J. Trauger and A. Tewari,Sequence length independent norm-based generalization bounds for transformers, in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, 2024, pp. 1405–1413

    2024

  28. [37]

    Vapnik and A

    V. Vapnik and A. Y. Chervonenkis,On the uniform convergence of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities, Theory of Probability and its Applications, 16 (1971), p. 264

    1971

  29. [38]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin,Attention is all you need, Advances in neural information processing systems, 30 (2017). [39]C. Villani,Optimal transport: old and new, vol. 338, Springer, 2009

    2017

  30. [40]

    Xu and M

    A. Xu and M. Raginsky,Information-theoretic analysis of generalization capability of learning algorithms, Advances in neural information processing systems, 30 (2017)

    2017

  31. [41]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. Bengio, M. Hardt, B. Recht, and O. Vinyals,Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization, in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. 25

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.