mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Quantifying Overfitting: Evaluating Neural Network Performance through Analysis of Null Space

arXiv 2305.19424 ↗First posted 30 May 2023cs.LG cs.CR cs.CVcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine learning models that are overfitted/overtrained are more vulnerable to knowledge leakage, which poses a risk to privacy. Suppose we download or receive a model from a third-party collaborator without knowing its training accuracy. How can we determine if it has been overfitted or overtrained on its training data? It's possible that the model was intentionally over-trained to make it vulnerable during testing. While an overfitted or overtrained model may perform well on testing data and even some generalization tests, we can't be sure it's not over-fitted. Conducting a comprehensive generalization test is also expensive. The goal of this paper is to address these issues and ensure the privacy and generalization of our method using only testing data. To achieve this, we analyze the null space in the last layer of neural networks, which enables us to quantify overfitting without access to training data or knowledge of the accuracy of those data. We evaluated our approach on various architectures and datasets and observed a distinct pattern in the angle of null space when models are overfitted. Furthermore, we show that models with poor generalization exhibit specific characteristics in this space. Our work represents the first attempt to quantify overfitting without access to training data or knowing any knowledge about the training samples.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2023.

Builds on

24 of 35 references.

References · 24

  1. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,281
  2. 2018The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networkscited by 864
  3. 2017Exploring Generalization in Deep Learningcited by 600
  4. 2018Object Detection with Deep Learning: A Reviewcited by 528
  5. 2022ViM: Out-Of-Distribution with Virtual-logit Matchingcited by 405
  6. 2021Remember What You Want to Forget: Algorithms for Machine Unlearningcited by 371
  7. 2018Learning Models with Uniform Performance via Distributionally Robust Optimizationcited by 335
  8. 2020Descent-to-Delete: Gradient-Based Methods for Machine Unlearningcited by 311
  9. 2015Data-driven Distributionally Robust Optimization Using the Wasserstein Metric: Performance Guarantees and Tractable Reformulationscited by 291
  10. 2018Sensitivity and Generalization in Neural Networks: an Empirical Studycited by 189
  11. 2021Interpretable Deep Learning: Interpretation, Interpretability, Trustworthiness, and Beyondcited by 118
  12. 2022Measuring Forgetting of Memorized Training Examplescited by 118
12 more
  1. 2021Deep Learning with Label Differential Privacycited by 117
  2. 2017Fisher-Rao Metric, Geometry, and Complexity of Neural Networkscited by 100
  3. 2020Privacy in Deep Learning: A Surveycited by 71
  4. 2019Stable Learning via Sample Reweightingcited by 70
  5. 2020Stable Prediction with Model Misspecification and Agnostic Distribution Shiftcited by 62
  6. 2021Antipodes of Label Differential Privacy: PATE and ALIBIcited by 52
  7. 2020Understanding Unintended Memorization in Federated Learningcited by 36
  8. 2020Outlier Detection through Null Space Analysis of Neural Networkscited by 19
  9. 2019Detecting Overfitting via Adversarial Examplescited by 15
  10. 2021Predicting Deep Neural Network Generalization with Perturbation Response Curvescited by 14
  11. 2022Detecting Unintended Memorization in Language-Model-Fused ASRcited by 10
  12. 2017On overfitting and post-selection uncertainty assessmentscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

4 papers.