Fast Rates for Semi-Supervised Learning via Data-Augmentation Graph Regularization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Self-supervised learning matches supervised accuracy from a fraction of the labels, but the labeled-sample efficiency behind this has lacked a theoretical explanation. We provide one. Data augmentation induces a similarity graph on the unlabeled data, so downstream learning on that graph is graph-Laplacian-regularized learning. We prove a fast transductive rate, O(1/nL) in the number of labels, in place of the supervised O(1/√nL), by carrying the leave-one-out stability apparatus of Johnson and Zhang (JMLR 2007) over to the augmentation graph, and without the unrealistic assumptions of limit-based analyses (exact kernel, generalizing features). The bound makes augmentation quality explicit: the expected error is at most C/nL + RDA(y), where the data-augmentation alignment error RDA(y) is proportional to the graph-cut mass of augmentations that cross a label boundary, so good augmentations let few labels suffice. The analysis uses a streamlined loss that drops the projector, negative-sample, and orthogonality overhead of standard objectives yet still recovers the top-K ideal features in the infinite-data limit, the augmentation-kernel eigenspace studied by Zhai et al. The bound gives a mechanistic account of the accuracy-versus-label-count curve through augmentation quality, verified in a controlled model where the constants are known.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jul 2026.
Builds on
23 of 33 references.
References · 23
- 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 11,979
- 2020Big Self-Supervised Models are Strong Semi-Supervised Learnerscited by 1,375
- 2019Data-Efficient Image Recognition with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 672
- 2019A Theoretical Analysis of Contrastive Unsupervised Representation Learningcited by 530
- 2021Provable Guarantees for Self-Supervised Deep Learning with Spectral Contrastive Losscited by 311
- 2022Contrastive and Non-Contrastive Self-Supervised Learning Recover Global and Local Spectral Embedding Methodscited by 146
- 2022Chaos is a Ladder: A New Theoretical Understanding of Contrastive Learning via Augmentation Overlapcited by 105
- 2019High probability generalization bounds for uniformly stable algorithms with nearly optimal ratecited by 97
- 2019Sharper bounds for uniformly stable algorithmscited by 91
- 2019Stability and Generalization of Graph Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 81
- 2018Generalization Bounds for Uniformly Stable Algorithmscited by 56
- 2022Contrastive Learning Can Find An Optimal Basis For Approximately View-Invariant Functionscited by 32
11 more
- 2022Sample Efficiency of Data Augmentation Consistency Regularizationcited by 28
- 2023Generalization Analysis for Contrastive Representation Learningcited by 25
- 2023Understanding Augmentation-based Self-Supervised Representation Learning via RKHS Approximation and Regressioncited by 20
- 2020Semi-Supervised Learning: the Case When Unlabeled Data is Equally Usefulcited by 9
- 2022Label Propagation with Weak Supervisioncited by 9
- 2023Cluster-aware Semi-supervised Learning: Relational Knowledge Distillation Provably Learns Clusteringcited by 7
- 2023Can semi-supervised learning use all the data effectively? A lower bound perspectivecited by 5
- 2023Harnessing small projectors and multiple views for efficient vision pretrainingcited by 5
- 2025Contextures: Representations from Contextscited by 3
- 2023Information-Theoretic Generalization Bounds for Transductive Learning and its Applicationscited by 2
- 2025How does Labeling Error Impact Contrastive Learning? A Perspective from Data Dimensionality Reductioncited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.