When Can We Trust the Matching Principle? Robust Deployment Geometry Under Finite-Sample and Model Uncertainty
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Match only geometry you can identify; otherwise spread the penalty. We quantify that decision by the trust ratio tau = epsilon / gamma (estimation uncertainty over spectral separation). Under the linear-quadratic Matching response, oracle-relative drift between estimated and oracle projector matching scales as tau^2 for probes in the chosen top-r deployment subspace -- O(tau^2) in the Davis-Kahan separation region tau < 1/2, with practical usefulness depending on constants. Confidence-Calibrated Matching (CCM) turns tau into a policy -- directional when tau is small, progressively isotropic when not -- with thresholds from calibration, not from the theorem (match sits in the separation region; soft is mostly heuristic). Experiments show both regimes, including UCI HAR embeddings where always-match is worse than abstain on every cell.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.
Builds on
9 of 17 references.
References · 9
- 2015Domain-Adversarial Training of Neural Networkscited by 3,044
- 2019Invariant Risk Minimizationcited by 1,854
- 2019Distributionally Robust Neural Networks for Group Shifts: On the Importance of Regularization for Worst-Case Generalizationcited by 1,247
- 2016Deep CORAL: Correlation Alignment for Deep Domain Adaptationcited by 1,200
- 2020In Search of Lost Domain Generalizationcited by 1,054
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
- 2026Supervised Learning Has a Geometric Blind Spotcited by 1
- 2026Jacobian-Velocity Bounds for Deployment Risk Under Covariate Driftcited by 1
- 2026The Matching Principle: When Does a Training Penalty Cover Deployment Shift?cited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.