mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Better-than-KL PAC-Bayes Bounds

arXiv 2402.09201 ↗First posted 14 Feb 2024cs.LG stat.MLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Let f(θ, X1), dots, f(θ, Xn) be a sequence of random elements, where f is a fixed scalar function, X1, dots, Xn are independent random variables (data), and θ is a random parameter distributed according to some data-dependent posterior distribution Pn. In this paper, we consider the problem of proving concentration inequalities to estimate the mean of the sequence. An example of such a problem is the estimation of the generalization error of some predictor trained by a stochastic algorithm, such as a neural network where f is a loss function. Classically, this problem is approached through a PAC-Bayes analysis where, in addition to the posterior, we choose a prior distribution which captures our belief about the inductive bias of the learning problem. Then, the key quantity in PAC-Bayes concentration bounds is a divergence that captures the complexity of the learning problem where the de facto standard choice is the KL divergence. However, the tightness of this choice has rarely been questioned. In this paper, we challenge the tightness of the KL-divergence-based bounds by showing that it is possible to achieve a strictly tighter bound. In particular, we demonstrate new high-probability PAC-Bayes bounds with a novel and better-than-KL divergence that is inspired by Zhang et al. (2022). Our proof is inspired by recent advances in regret analysis of gambling algorithms, and its use to derive concentration inequalities. Our result is first-of-its-kind in that existing PAC-Bayes bounds with non-KL divergences are not known to be strictly better than KL. Thus, we believe our work marks the first step towards identifying optimal rates of PAC-Bayes bounds.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Feb 2024.

Builds on

20 of 49 references.

References · 20

  1. 2017Computing Nonvacuous Generalization Bounds for Deep (Stochastic) Neural Networks with Many More Parameters than Training Datacited by 533
  2. 2019Online Learning: A Modern Introduction Using Convex Optimizationcited by 417
  3. 2021User-friendly introduction to PAC-Bayes boundscited by 239
  4. 2016Coin Betting and Parameter-Free Online Learningcited by 133
  5. 2020Tighter risk certificates for neural networkscited by 112
  6. 2020On the role of data in PAC-Bayes boundscited by 64
  7. 2020PAC-Bayes Analysis Beyond the Usual Boundscited by 63
  8. 2015Second-order Quantile Methods for Experts and Combinatorial Gamescited by 49
  9. 2016Simpler PAC-Bayesian Bounds for Hostile Datacited by 46
  10. 2021Tight Concentrations and Confidence Sequences from the Regret of Universal Portfoliocited by 43
  11. 2019PAC-Bayes Un-Expected Bernstein Inequalitycited by 36
  12. 2019Parameter-Free Online Convex Optimization with Sub-Exponential Noisecited by 28
8 more
  1. 2015On Equivalence of Martingale Tail Bounds and Deterministic Regret Inequalitiescited by 27
  2. 2019Fast-rate PAC-Bayes Generalization Bounds via Shifted Rademacher Processescited by 20
  3. 2019Efron-Stein PAC-Bayesian Inequalitiescited by 16
  4. 2023Online-to-PAC Conversions: Generalization Bounds via Regret Analysiscited by 14
  5. 2023Tighter PAC-Bayes Bounds Through Coin-Bettingcited by 13
  6. 2022Optimal Comparator Adaptive Online Learning with Switching Costcited by 9
  7. 2018Guaranteed Deterministic Bounds on the Total Variation Distance between Univariate Mixturescited by 7
  8. 2023A unified framework for information-theoretic generalization boundscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

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

4 papers.