Separating Geometry from Probability in the Analysis of Generalization

Generalization bounds for deep learning models are typically vacuous, not computable or restricted to specific model classes. In this paper, we tackle these issues by providing new disagreement-based certificates for the gap between the true risk of any two predictors. We then bound the true risk of the predictor of interest via a surrogate model that enjoys tight generalization guarantees, and by evaluating our disagreement bound on an unlabeled dataset.We empirically demonstrate the tightness of the obtained certificates and showcase the versatility of the approach by training surrogate models leveraging three different frameworks: sample compression, model compression and PAC-Bayes theory. Importantly, such guarantees are achieved without modifying the target model, nor adapting the training procedure to the generalization framework.

In this paper, the method of gaps, a technique for deriving closed-form expressions in terms of information measures for the generalization error of supervised learning algorithms, is introduced. This method relies on the notion of gaps, which characterize the variation of the expected empirical risk (when either the model or dataset is kept fixed) with respect to changes in the probability measure on the varying parameter. This distinction results in two classes of gaps: algorithm-driven gaps (fixed dataset) and data-driven gaps (fixed model). The method relies on two central observations: (i) the generalization error is the expectation of an algorithm-driven gap or a data-driven gap. In the first case, the expectation is with respect to a measure on the datasets; in the second case, it is with respect to a measure on the models. (ii) Both algorithm-driven gaps and data-driven gaps exhibit closed-form expressions in terms of relative entropies. In particular, algorithm-driven gaps involve a Gibbs probability measure on the set of models, which represents a supervised Gibbs algorithm. Alternatively, data-driven gaps involve a worst-case data-generating (WCDG) probability measure on the set of data points, which is also a Gibbs probability measure. Interestingly, such Gibbs measures, which are exogenous to the analysis of generalization, place the supervised Gibbs algorithm and the WCDG probability measure as natural references for the analysis of supervised learning algorithms. New exact expressions and all existing exact expressions for the generalization error of supervised learning algorithms can be obtained with the proposed method. Such new expressions are intended as structural and conceptual characterizations, not computational shortcuts. Finally, these expressions unveil strong connections among generalization, hypothesis testing, information measures, and Pythagorean identities.

Generalization is a critical property of data-driven models, particularly deep learning models deployed in safety-critical applications. Robustness-based generalization bounds have gained attention as a principled way to link robustness properties to generalization performance, often in a data-dependent manner. However, most existing bounds suffer from vacuousness in practical settings, yielding loose upper bounds that greatly exceed the actual error rates and limiting their usefulness for real-world evaluation. While this issue is often attributed to the uncertainty term, a substantial part of the problem originates from the robustness term itself, particularly for the 0-1 loss. Existing approaches typically treat the robustness term as a global measure, ignoring its variation across different sub-regions of the input space. In this work, we propose a generalization bound that addresses this limitation by scaling the robustness term according to the number of stable and unstable samples within each sub-region. Our bounds incorporate both data- and model-dependent factors while maintaining practical relevance (yielding tighter upper bounds on true error). Experiments on models trained on the ImageNet dataset show that our bounds remain consistently non-vacuous and achieve the tightest estimates among existing methods, closely aligning with empirical performance across a range of robust deep neural networks.