Table of Contents
Fetching ...

A Generalization Bound for a Family of Implicit Networks

Samy Wu Fung, Benjamin Berkels

TL;DR

This work derives a generalization bound for a broad family of implicit neural networks defined by contractive fixed-point operators. By bounding the Rademacher complexity via a covering-number argument and Dudley’s inequality, the authors obtain a bound that scales with the parameter count $p$ and is largely depth-agnostic. The bound applies across architectures such as single-layer contractive networks, Monotone Equilibrium Networks, and gradient-descent–based schemes, provided standard Lipschitz and boundedness assumptions hold. Experiments on CT and MNIST-like data illustrate the bound’s $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{N})$ behavior and demonstrate practical estimation of the constants involved, though the bound is not guaranteed to be tight. Overall, the paper advances theoretical understanding of generalization in implicit networks and suggests avenues for integrating such models as differentiable layers within larger systems.

Abstract

Implicit networks are a class of neural networks whose outputs are defined by the fixed point of a parameterized operator. They have enjoyed success in many applications including natural language processing, image processing, and numerous other applications. While they have found abundant empirical success, theoretical work on its generalization is still under-explored. In this work, we consider a large family of implicit networks defined parameterized contractive fixed point operators. We show a generalization bound for this class based on a covering number argument for the Rademacher complexity of these architectures.

A Generalization Bound for a Family of Implicit Networks

TL;DR

This work derives a generalization bound for a broad family of implicit neural networks defined by contractive fixed-point operators. By bounding the Rademacher complexity via a covering-number argument and Dudley’s inequality, the authors obtain a bound that scales with the parameter count and is largely depth-agnostic. The bound applies across architectures such as single-layer contractive networks, Monotone Equilibrium Networks, and gradient-descent–based schemes, provided standard Lipschitz and boundedness assumptions hold. Experiments on CT and MNIST-like data illustrate the bound’s behavior and demonstrate practical estimation of the constants involved, though the bound is not guaranteed to be tight. Overall, the paper advances theoretical understanding of generalization in implicit networks and suggests avenues for integrating such models as differentiable layers within larger systems.

Abstract

Implicit networks are a class of neural networks whose outputs are defined by the fixed point of a parameterized operator. They have enjoyed success in many applications including natural language processing, image processing, and numerous other applications. While they have found abundant empirical success, theoretical work on its generalization is still under-explored. In this work, we consider a large family of implicit networks defined parameterized contractive fixed point operators. We show a generalization bound for this class based on a covering number argument for the Rademacher complexity of these architectures.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 24 sections, 12 theorems, 61 equations, 2 figures, 1 table.

Key Result

Theorem 1

Let $(Z_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ be a centered subgaussian process with radius $\Delta(\mathcal{T})$. Then

Figures (2)

  • Figure 1: Generalization bound (and errors) for different implicit architectures and for different number of parameters $p$. On the x-axis, we have the number of samples (note these are multiplied by $10^4$).
  • Figure 2: Generalization bound for the MNIST dataset. Here, the blue line represents the generalization bound, and the green and orange line represent the generalization error for an optimized and random set of weights, respectively

Theorems & Definitions (30)

  • Definition 1
  • Definition 2: talagrand2014upper, Definition 1.4.1
  • Remark 1
  • Definition 3: Empirical Rademacher Complexity
  • Remark 2
  • Definition 4: Subgaussian Process, foucart2013mathematical, Definition 8.22
  • Remark 3
  • Theorem 1: Dudley's Inequality, Theorem 1.4.2 talagrand2014upper
  • Theorem 2: Theorem 26.5, shalev2014understanding
  • Remark 4
  • ...and 20 more