Generalization Bounds: Perspectives from Information Theory and PAC-Bayes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental question in theoretical machine learning is generalization. Over the past decades, the PAC-Bayesian approach has been established as a flexible framework to address the generalization capabilities of machine learning algorithms and design new ones. Recently, it has garnered increased interest due to its potential applicability for a variety of learning algorithms, including deep neural networks. In parallel, an information-theoretic view of generalization has developed, wherein the relation between generalization and various information measures has been established. This framework is intimately connected to the PAC-Bayesian approach, and a number of results have been independently discovered in both strands. In this monograph, we highlight this strong connection and present a unified treatment of PAC-Bayesian and information-theoretic generalization bounds. We present techniques and results that the two perspectives have in common, and discuss the approaches and interpretations that differ. In particular, we demonstrate how many proofs in the area share a modular structure, through which the underlying ideas can be intuited. We pay special attention to the conditional mutual information (CMI) framework, analytical studies of the information complexity of learning algorithms, and the application of the proposed methods to deep learning. This monograph is intended to provide a comprehensive introduction to information-theoretic generalization bounds and their connection to PAC-Bayes, serving as a foundation from which the most recent developments are accessible. It is aimed broadly towards researchers with an interest in generalization and theoretical machine learning.
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 | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".