mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Fast Rates for Semi-Supervised Learning via Data-Augmentation Graph Regularization

arXiv 2607.07513 ↗First posted 8 Jul 2026cs.LG math.ST stat.MLcited by 0

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

  1. 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 11,979
  2. 2020Big Self-Supervised Models are Strong Semi-Supervised Learnerscited by 1,375
  3. 2019Data-Efficient Image Recognition with Contrastive Predictive Codingcited by 672
  4. 2019A Theoretical Analysis of Contrastive Unsupervised Representation Learningcited by 530
  5. 2021Provable Guarantees for Self-Supervised Deep Learning with Spectral Contrastive Losscited by 311
  6. 2022Contrastive and Non-Contrastive Self-Supervised Learning Recover Global and Local Spectral Embedding Methodscited by 146
  7. 2022Chaos is a Ladder: A New Theoretical Understanding of Contrastive Learning via Augmentation Overlapcited by 105
  8. 2019High probability generalization bounds for uniformly stable algorithms with nearly optimal ratecited by 97
  9. 2019Sharper bounds for uniformly stable algorithmscited by 91
  10. 2019Stability and Generalization of Graph Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 81
  11. 2018Generalization Bounds for Uniformly Stable Algorithmscited by 56
  12. 2022Contrastive Learning Can Find An Optimal Basis For Approximately View-Invariant Functionscited by 32
11 more
  1. 2022Sample Efficiency of Data Augmentation Consistency Regularizationcited by 28
  2. 2023Generalization Analysis for Contrastive Representation Learningcited by 25
  3. 2023Understanding Augmentation-based Self-Supervised Representation Learning via RKHS Approximation and Regressioncited by 20
  4. 2020Semi-Supervised Learning: the Case When Unlabeled Data is Equally Usefulcited by 9
  5. 2022Label Propagation with Weak Supervisioncited by 9
  6. 2023Cluster-aware Semi-supervised Learning: Relational Knowledge Distillation Provably Learns Clusteringcited by 7
  7. 2023Can semi-supervised learning use all the data effectively? A lower bound perspectivecited by 5
  8. 2023Harnessing small projectors and multiple views for efficient vision pretrainingcited by 5
  9. 2025Contextures: Representations from Contextscited by 3
  10. 2023Information-Theoretic Generalization Bounds for Transductive Learning and its Applicationscited by 2
  11. 2025How does Labeling Error Impact Contrastive Learning? A Perspective from Data Dimensionality Reductioncited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.