A direct proof of a unified law of robustness for Bregman divergence losses
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In contemporary deep learning practice, models are often trained to near zero loss i.e. to nearly interpolate the training data. However, the number of parameters in the model is usually far more than the number of data points n, the theoretical minimum needed for interpolation: a phenomenon referred to as overparameterization. In an interesting piece of work, Bubeck and Sellke considered a natural notion of interpolation: the model is said to interpolate when the model's training loss goes below the loss of the conditional expectation of the response given the covariate. For this notion of interpolation and for a broad class of covariate distributions (specifically those satisfying a natural notion of concentration of measure), they showed that overparameterization is necessary for robust interpolation i.e. if the interpolating function is required to be Lipschitz. Their main proof technique applies to regression with square loss against a scalar response, but they remark that via a connection to Rademacher complexity and using tools such as the Ledoux-Talagrand contraction inequality, their result can be extended to more general losses, at least in the case of scalar response variables. In this work, we recast the original proof technique of Bubeck and Sellke in terms of a bias-variance type decomposition, and show that this view directly unlocks a generalization to Bregman divergence losses (even for vector-valued responses), without the use of tools such as Rademacher complexity or the Ledoux-Talagrand contraction principle. Bregman divergences are a natural class of losses since for these, the best estimator is the conditional expectation of the response given the covariate, and include other practical losses such as the cross entropy loss. Our work thus gives a more general understanding of the main proof technique of Bubeck and Sellke and demonstrates its broad utility.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2024.
Builds on
31 of 47 references.
References · 31
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
- 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,114
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 2,927
- 2019Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Featurescited by 950
- 2016Adversarial Machine Learning at Scalecited by 934
- 2014Deep Neural Networks are Easily Fooled: High Confidence Predictions for Unrecognizable Imagescited by 774
- 2017Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Timecited by 686
- 2014In Search of the Real Inductive Bias: On the Role of Implicit Regularization in Deep Learningcited by 339
- 2018To understand deep learning we need to understand kernel learningcited by 186
- 2018Dynamical Isometry and a Mean Field Theory of CNNs: How to Train 10,000-Layer Vanilla Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 176
- 2019Gradient Descent with Early Stopping is Provably Robust to Label Noise for Overparameterized Neural Networkscited by 158
19 more
- 2021A Universal Law of Robustness via Isoperimetrycited by 150
- 2016A vector-contraction inequality for Rademacher complexitiescited by 141
- 2020Rethinking Bias-Variance Trade-off for Generalization of Neural Networkscited by 107
- 2021Training Certifiably Robust Neural Networks with Efficient Local Lipschitz Boundscited by 64
- 2020On the Loss Landscape of Adversarial Training: Identifying Challenges and How to Overcome Themcited by 59
- 2019Convergence of Adversarial Training in Overparametrized Neural Networkscited by 58
- 2020A law of robustness for two-layers neural networkscited by 54
- 2022The curse of overparametrization in adversarial training: Precise analysis of robust generalization for random features regressioncited by 40
- 2020Over-parameterized Adversarial Training: An Analysis Overcoming the Curse of Dimensionalitycited by 36
- 2022Why Robust Generalization in Deep Learning is Difficult: Perspective of Expressive Powercited by 23
- 2022Robustness in deep learning: The good (width), the bad (depth), and the ugly (initialization)cited by 18
- 2019Are Self-Driving Cars Secure? Evasion Attacks against Deep Neural Networks for Steering Angle Predictioncited by 16
- 2023Classification with Deep Neural Networks and Logistic Losscited by 16
- 2020Generalised Lipschitz Regularisation Equals Distributional Robustnesscited by 14
- 2022Adversarial robustness of sparse local Lipschitz predictorscited by 11
- 2022A Law of Robustness beyond Isoperimetrycited by 9
- 2021Double-descent curves in neural networks: a new perspective using Gaussian processescited by 5
- 2024Theoretical Understanding of Learning from Adversarial Perturbationscited by 2
- 2022Rotated Object Detection via Scale-invariant Mahalanobis Distance in Aerial Imagescited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 3.
4 papers.
- 2024The Approximate Fisher Influence Function: Faster Estimation of Data Influence in Statistical Modelscited by 2
- 2026On damage of interpolation to adversarial robustness in regressioncited by 1
- 2026Does Order Matter : Connecting The Law of Robustness to Robust Generalizationcited by 1
- 2026The Price of Robustness: Stable Classifiers Need Overparameterizationcited by 0
- 2026The Price of Robustness: Stable Classifiers Need Overparameterization3 Mar 2026
- 2026Does Order Matter : Connecting The Law of Robustness to Robust Generalization24 Feb 2026
- 2026On damage of interpolation to adversarial robustness in regression22 Jan 2026
- 2024The Approximate Fisher Influence Function: Faster Estimation of Data Influence in Statistical Models11 Jul 2024