Cited by 70Machine Learning and AlgorithmsStochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

Information-theoretic analysis of stability and bias of learning algorithms

Raginsky, Maxim, Rakhlin, Alexander, Matthew Tsao, Wu, Yihong, Aolin Xu·2016·2016 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW)

Abstract

Machine learning algorithms can be viewed as stochastic transformations that map training data to hypotheses. Following Bousquet and Elisseeff, we say that such an algorithm is stable if its output does not depend too much on any individual training example. Since stability is closely connected to generalization capabilities of learning algorithms, it is of theoretical and practical interest to obtain sharp quantitative estimates on the generalization bias of machine learning algorithms in terms of their stability properties. We propose several information-theoretic measures of algorithmic stability and use them to upper-bound the generalization bias of learning algorithms. Our framework is complementary to the information-theoretic methodology developed recently by Russo and Zou.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/itw.2016.7606789

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The application of sensitivity analysis in ML is often to measure the stability of a model.

    “The application of sensitivity analysis in ML is often to measure the stability of a model [242].”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [242]

  • Approaches tend to operate on too small a subset of features raising stability concerns.

    “More realistic datasets are needed: [242] argue that approaches tend to operate on too small a subset of features raising stability concerns.”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [242]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 70

Authors
Raginsky, M., Rakhlin, A., Tsao, M., Wu, Y., & Xu, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Venue
2016 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2016-09
Pages
26-30
OpenAlex
W2541283300
Cited by
70
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4
FWCI
3.05
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
algorithm stability, generalization error, information measures, learning algorithms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review