mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Tighter PAC-Bayes Bounds Through Coin-Betting

arXiv 2302.05829 ↗First posted 12 Feb 2023cs.LG stat.MLcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We consider the problem of estimating the mean of a sequence of random elements f(X1, θ) , ldots, f(Xn, θ) where f is a fixed scalar function, S=(X1, ldots, Xn) are independent random variables, and θ is a possibly S-dependent parameter. An example of such a problem would be to estimate the generalization error of a neural network trained on n examples where f is a loss function. Classically, this problem is approached through concentration inequalities holding uniformly over compact parameter sets of functions f, for example as in Rademacher or VC type analysis. However, in many problems, such inequalities often yield numerically vacuous estimates. Recently, the PAC-Bayes framework has been proposed as a better alternative for this class of problems for its ability to often give numerically non-vacuous bounds. In this paper, we show that we can do even better: we show how to refine the proof strategy of the PAC-Bayes bounds and achieve even tighter guarantees. Our approach is based on the coin-betting framework that derives the numerically tightest known time-uniform concentration inequalities from the regret guarantees of online gambling algorithms. In particular, we derive the first PAC-Bayes concentration inequality based on the coin-betting approach that holds simultaneously for all sample sizes. We demonstrate its tightness showing that by relaxing it we obtain a number of previous results in a closed form including Bernoulli-KL and empirical Bernstein inequalities. Finally, we propose an efficient algorithm to numerically calculate confidence sequences from our bound, which often generates nonvacuous confidence bounds even with one sample, unlike the state-of-the-art PAC-Bayes bounds.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Feb 2023.

Builds on

17 of 47 references.

References · 17

  1. 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,657
  2. 2017Computing Nonvacuous Generalization Bounds for Deep (Stochastic) Neural Networks with Many More Parameters than Training Datacited by 527
  3. 2019Online Learning: A Modern Introduction Using Convex Optimizationcited by 407
  4. 2017Non-convex learning via Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics: a nonasymptotic analysiscited by 242
  5. 2021User-friendly introduction to PAC-Bayes boundscited by 234
  6. 2016Coin Betting and Parameter-Free Online Learningcited by 131
  7. 2018Non-Vacuous Generalization Bounds at the ImageNet Scale: A PAC-Bayesian Compression Approachcited by 125
  8. 2015On the properties of variational approximations of Gibbs posteriorscited by 121
  9. 2020Tighter risk certificates for neural networkscited by 112
  10. 2021Tight Concentrations and Confidence Sequences from the Regret of Universal Portfoliocited by 42
  11. 2019PAC-Bayes Un-Expected Bernstein Inequalitycited by 36
  12. 2018Bayesian Counterfactual Risk Minimizationcited by 28
5 more
  1. 2019Parameter-Free Online Convex Optimization with Sub-Exponential Noisecited by 28
  2. 2015On Equivalence of Martingale Tail Bounds and Deterministic Regret Inequalitiescited by 27
  3. 2019Distribution-Dependent Analysis of Gibbs-ERM Principlecited by 17
  4. 2022Split-kl and PAC-Bayes-split-kl Inequalities for Ternary Random Variablescited by 11
  5. 2017A Tight Excess Risk Bound via a Unified PAC-Bayesian-Rademacher-Shtarkov-MDL Complexitycited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 5; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

13 papers.

Sort: