mathscrH-Consistency Estimation Error of Surrogate Loss Minimizers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We present a detailed study of estimation errors in terms of surrogate loss estimation errors. We refer to such guarantees as mathscrH-consistency estimation error bounds, since they account for the hypothesis set mathscrH adopted. These guarantees are significantly stronger than mathscrH-calibration or mathscrH-consistency. They are also more informative than similar excess error bounds derived in the literature, when mathscrH is the family of all measurable functions. We prove general theorems providing such guarantees, for both the distribution-dependent and distribution-independent settings. We show that our bounds are tight, modulo a convexity assumption. We also show that previous excess error bounds can be recovered as special cases of our general results. We then present a series of explicit bounds in the case of the zero-one loss, with multiple choices of the surrogate loss and for both the family of linear functions and neural networks with one hidden-layer. We further prove more favorable distribution-dependent guarantees in that case. We also present a series of explicit bounds in the case of the adversarial loss, with surrogate losses based on the supremum of the ρ-margin, hinge or sigmoid loss and for the same two general hypothesis sets. Here too, we prove several enhancements of these guarantees under natural distributional assumptions. Finally, we report the results of simulations illustrating our bounds and their tightness.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 May 2022.
Builds on
18 of 42 references.
References · 18
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
- 2016Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networkscited by 2,976
- 2019Theoretically Principled Trade-off between Robustness and Accuracycited by 1,510
- 2018Robustness May Be at Odds with Accuracycited by 873
- 2020Fast is better than free: Revisiting adversarial trainingcited by 723
- 2021A Universal Law of Robustness via Isoperimetrycited by 150
- 2019VC Classes are Adversarially Robustly Learnable, but Only Improperlycited by 83
- 2018Adversarial examples from computational constraintscited by 79
- 2020Calibrated Surrogate Losses for Adversarially Robust Classificationcited by 36
- 2020Reducing Adversarially Robust Learning to Non-Robust PAC Learningcited by 28
- 2021A single gradient step finds adversarial examples on random two-layers neural networkscited by 26
6 more
- 2021Adversarial Examples in Multi-Layer Random ReLU Networkscited by 26
- 2018PAC-learning in the presence of evasion adversariescited by 23
- 2018Improved Generalization Bounds for Adversarially Robust Learningcited by 22
- 2020The Complexity of Adversarially Robust Proper Learning of Halfspaces with Agnostic Noisecited by 15
- 2018Adversarial Risk Bounds via Function Transformationcited by 12
- 2018Adversarial Examples from Cryptographic Pseudo-Random Generatorscited by 10
Built on by
Not cited yet.