Understanding Generalization via Leave-One-Out Conditional Mutual Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the mutual information between (certain summaries of) the output of a learning algorithm and its $n$ training data, conditional on a supersample of $n+1$ i.i.d. data from which the training data is chosen at random without replacement. These leave-one-out variants of the conditional mutual information (CMI) of an algorithm (Steinke and Zakynthinou, 2020) are also seen to control the mean generalization error of learning algorithms with bounded loss functions. For learning algorithms achieving zero empirical risk under 0-1 loss (i.e., interpolating algorithms), we provide an explicit connection between leave-one-out CMI and the classical leave-one-out error estimate of the risk. Using this connection, we obtain upper and lower bounds on risk in terms of the (evaluated) leave-one-out CMI. When the limiting risk is constant or decays polynomially, the bounds converge to within a constant factor of two. As an application, we analyze the population risk of the one-inclusion graph algorithm, a general-purpose transductive learning algorithm for VC classes in the realizable setting. Using leave-one-out CMI, we match the optimal bound for learning VC classes in the realizable setting, answering an open challenge raised by Steinke and Zakynthinou (2020). Finally, in order to understand the role of leave-one-out CMI in studying generalization, we place leave-one-out CMI in a hierarchy of measures, with a novel unconditional mutual information at the root. For 0-1 loss and interpolating learning algorithms, this mutual information is observed to be precisely the risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".