{"title":"A practical generalization metric for deep networks benchmarking.","authors":"Mengqing Huang, Hongchuan Yu, Jianjun Zhang","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-93005-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is an ongoing and dedicated effort to estimate bounds on the generalization error of deep learning models, coupled with an increasing interest with practical metrics that can be used to experimentally evaluate a model's ability to generalize. This interest is not only driven by practical considerations but is also vital for theoretical research, as theoretical estimations require practical validation. However, there is currently a lack of research on benchmarking the generalization capacity of various deep networks and verifying these theoretical estimations. This paper aims to introduce a practical generalization metric for benchmarking different deep networks and proposes a novel testbed for the verification of theoretical estimations. Our findings indicate that a deep network's generalization capacity in classification tasks is contingent upon both classification accuracy and the diversity of unseen data. The proposed metric system is capable of quantifying the accuracy of deep learning models and the diversity of data, providing an intuitive and quantitative evaluation method - a trade-off point. Furthermore, we compare our practical metric with existing generalization theoretical estimations using our benchmarking testbed. It is discouraging to note that most of the available generalization estimations do not correlate with the practical measurements obtained using our testbed. On the other hand, this finding is significant as it exposes the shortcomings of theoretical estimations and inspires new exploration.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"9747"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11928604/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-93005-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
There is an ongoing and dedicated effort to estimate bounds on the generalization error of deep learning models, coupled with an increasing interest with practical metrics that can be used to experimentally evaluate a model's ability to generalize. This interest is not only driven by practical considerations but is also vital for theoretical research, as theoretical estimations require practical validation. However, there is currently a lack of research on benchmarking the generalization capacity of various deep networks and verifying these theoretical estimations. This paper aims to introduce a practical generalization metric for benchmarking different deep networks and proposes a novel testbed for the verification of theoretical estimations. Our findings indicate that a deep network's generalization capacity in classification tasks is contingent upon both classification accuracy and the diversity of unseen data. The proposed metric system is capable of quantifying the accuracy of deep learning models and the diversity of data, providing an intuitive and quantitative evaluation method - a trade-off point. Furthermore, we compare our practical metric with existing generalization theoretical estimations using our benchmarking testbed. It is discouraging to note that most of the available generalization estimations do not correlate with the practical measurements obtained using our testbed. On the other hand, this finding is significant as it exposes the shortcomings of theoretical estimations and inspires new exploration.
期刊介绍:
We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections.
Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021).
•Engineering
Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live.
•Physical sciences
Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics.
•Earth and environmental sciences
Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems.
•Biological sciences
Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants.
•Health sciences
The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.