We derive upper bounds on the generalization error of learning algorithms based on their : the expected Wasserstein distance between the output hypothesis and the output hypothesis conditioned on an input example. The bounds provide a novel approach to study the generalization of learning algorithms from an optimal transport view and impose less constraints on the loss function, such as sub-gaussian or bounded. We further provide several upper bounds on the algorithmic transport cost in terms of total variation distance, relative entropy (or KL-divergence), and VC dimension, thus further bridging optimal transport theory and information theory with statistical learning theory. Moreover, we also study different conditions for loss functions under which the generalization error of a learning algorithm can be upper bounded by different probability metrics between distributions relating to the output hypothesis and or the input data. Finally, under our established framework, we analyze the generalization in deep learning and conclude that the generalization error in deep neural networks (DNNs) decreases exponentially to zero as the number of layers increases. Our analyses of generalization error in deep learning mainly exploit the hierarchical structure in DNNs and the contraction property of @math -divergence, which may be of independent interest in analyzing other learning models with hierarchical structure.
It is worth mentioning that some works show that these approaches are tightly connected. For example, @cite_36 proves that a higher algorithmic stability implies a smaller hypothesis complexity and @cite_25 analyzes the PAC bayesian bounds for stable learning algorithms. Nevertheless, these approaches are insufficient to explain the generalization of learning models with large hypothesis space, such as deep neural networks ( @cite_40 ). Therefore, it is necessary to find a valid approach that can explain why deep learning is attractive in terms of its generalization properties.
@cite_36 @cite_40 @cite_25
2188409822 2604117713 2110630246 2279913547
One of the central questions in statistical learning theory is to determine the conditions under which agents can learn from experience. This includes the necessary and sufficient conditions for generalization from a given finite training set to new observations. In this paper, we prove that algorithmic stability in the inference process is equivalent to uniform generalization across all parametric loss functions. We provide various interpretations of this result. For instance, a relationship is proved between stability and data processing, which reveals that algorithmic stability can be improved by post-processing the inferred hypothesis or by augmenting training examples with artificial noise prior to learning. In addition, we establish a relationship between algorithmic stability and the size of the observation space, which provides a formal justification for dimensionality reduction methods. Finally, we connect algorithmic stability to the size of the hypothesis space, which recovers the classical PAC result that the size (complexity) of the hypothesis space should be controlled in order to improve algorithmic stability and improve generalization. One of the defining properties of deep learning is that models are chosen to have many more parameters than available training data. In light of this capacity for overfitting, it is remarkable that simple algorithms like SGD reliably return solutions with low test error. One roadblock to explaining these phenomena in terms of implicit regularization, structural properties of the solution, and or easiness of the data is that many learning bounds are quantitatively vacuous when applied to networks learned by SGD in this "deep learning" regime. Logically, in order to explain generalization, we need nonvacuous bounds. We return to an idea by Langford and Caruana (2001), who used PAC-Bayes bounds to compute nonvacuous numerical bounds on generalization error for stochastic two-layer two-hidden-unit neural networks via a sensitivity analysis. By optimizing the PAC-Bayes bound directly, we are able to extend their approach and obtain nonvacuous generalization bounds for deep stochastic neural network classifiers with millions of parameters trained on only tens of thousands of examples. We connect our findings to recent and old work on flat minima and MDL-based explanations of generalization. We present a novel way of obtaining PAC-style bounds on the generalization error of learning algorithms, explicitly using their stability properties. A stable learner is one for which the learned solution does not change much with small changes in the training set. The bounds we obtain do not depend on any measure of the complexity of the hypothesis space (e.g. VC dimension) but rather depend on how the learning algorithm searches this space, and can thus be applied even when the VC dimension is infinite. We demonstrate that regularization networks possess the required stability property and apply our method to obtain new bounds on their generalization performance. The traditional notion of generalization---i.e., learning a hypothesis whose empirical error is close to its true error---is surprisingly brittle. As has recently been noted in [DFH+15b], even if several algorithms have this guarantee in isolation, the guarantee need not hold if the algorithms are composed adaptively. In this paper, we study three notions of generalization---increasing in strength---that are robust to postprocessing and amenable to adaptive composition, and examine the relationships between them. We call the weakest such notion Robust Generalization. A second, intermediate, notion is the stability guarantee known as differential privacy. The strongest guarantee we consider we call Perfect Generalization. We prove that every hypothesis class that is PAC learnable is also PAC learnable in a robustly generalizing fashion, with almost the same sample complexity. It was previously known that differentially private algorithms satisfy robust generalization. In this paper, we show that robust generalization is a strictly weaker concept, and that there is a learning task that can be carried out subject to robust generalization guarantees, yet cannot be carried out subject to differential privacy. We also show that perfect generalization is a strictly stronger guarantee than differential privacy, but that, nevertheless, many learning tasks can be carried out subject to the guarantees of perfect generalization.