PACMAN: PAC-style bounds accounting for the Mismatch between Accuracy and Negative log-loss
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The ultimate performance of machine learning algorithms for classification tasks is usually measured in terms of the empirical error probability (or accuracy) based on a testing dataset. Whereas, these algorithms are optimized through the minimization of a typically different--more convenient--loss function based on a training set. For classification tasks, this loss function is often the negative log-loss that leads to the well-known cross-entropy risk which is typically better behaved (from a numerical perspective) than the error probability. Conventional studies on the generalization error do not usually take into account the underlying mismatch between losses at training and testing phases. In this work, we introduce an analysis based on point-wise PAC approach over the generalization gap considering the mismatch of testing based on the accuracy metric and training on the negative log-loss. We label this analysis PACMAN. Building on the fact that the mentioned mismatch can be written as a likelihood ratio, concentration inequalities can be used to provide some insights for the generalization problem in terms of some point-wise PAC bounds depending on some meaningful information-theoretic quantities. An analysis of the obtained bounds and a comparison with available results in the literature are also provided.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Dec 2021.
Builds on
23 of 51 references.
References · 23
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,349
- 2016Identity Mappings in Deep Residual Networkscited by 1,965
- 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,674
- 2018MINE: Mutual Information Neural Estimationcited by 683
- 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 672
- 2017Computing Nonvacuous Generalization Bounds for Deep (Stochastic) Neural Networks with Many More Parameters than Training Datacited by 533
- 2017A PAC-Bayesian Approach to Spectrally-Normalized Margin Bounds for Neural Networkscited by 314
- 2017Information-theoretic analysis of generalization capability of learning algorithmscited by 303
- 2021User-friendly introduction to PAC-Bayes boundscited by 239
- 2018Non-Vacuous Generalization Bounds at the ImageNet Scale: A PAC-Bayesian Compression Approachcited by 126
11 more
- 2020Tighter risk certificates for neural networkscited by 112
- 2017Entropy-SGD optimizes the prior of a PAC-Bayes bound: Generalization properties of Entropy-SGD and data-dependent priorscited by 81
- 2018Learning Representations for Neural Network-Based Classification Using the Information Bottleneck Principlecited by 70
- 2020On the role of data in PAC-Bayes boundscited by 64
- 2019Deterministic PAC-Bayesian generalization bounds for deep networks via generalizing noise-resiliencecited by 51
- 2020Recent advances in deep learning theorycited by 41
- 2017Geometry of Optimization and Implicit Regularization in Deep Learningcited by 39
- 2019PAC-Bayes with Backpropcited by 36
- 2021On Margins and Derandomisation in PAC-Bayescited by 19
- 2020On the Estimation of Information Measures of Continuous Distributionscited by 6
- 2020Robust Generalization via α-Mutual Informationcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.