Understanding Generalization via Leave-One-Out Conditional Mutual Information
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it