We present a PAC-Bayes-style generalization bound which enables the replacement of the KL-divergence with a variety of Integral Probability Metrics (IPM). We provide instances of this bound with the IPM being the total variation metric and the Wasserstein distance. A notable feature of the obtained bounds is that they naturally interpolate between classical uniform convergence bounds in the worst case (when the prior and posterior are far away from each other), and improved bounds in favorable cases (when the posterior and prior are close). This illustrates the possibility of reinforcing classical generalization bounds with algorithm-and data-dependent components, thus making them more suitable to analyze algorithms that use a large hypothesis space.

For ease and reliable comparison, we report the average of all Rank-1 and mAP results on all test datasets over several random runs for ablation study and parameter analysis. This is denoted by mAcc. There are three reasons that we use mAcc. It is a unified measure, which is convenient for algorithm comparison. Both Rank-1 and mAP are accuracy measures ranging from 0%-100%, thus averaging them is possible. Besides, if a method's mAcc is 1% higher than another method, on average it means that every single measure on each dataset has been increased by 1%, which is a perceptible achievement.

Autonomous driving relies on a huge volume of real-world data to be labeled to high precision. Alternative solutions seek to exploit driving simulators that can generate large amounts of labeled data with a plethora of content variations. However, the domain gap between the synthetic and real data remains, raising the following important question: What are the best way to utilize a self-driving simulator for perception tasks? In this work, we build on top of recent advances in domain-adaptation theory, and from this perspective, propose ways to minimize the reality gap. We primarily focus on the use of labels in the synthetic domain alone. Our approach introduces both a principled way to learn neural-invariant representations and a theoretically inspired view on how to sample the data from the simulator. Our method is easy to implement in practice as it is agnostic of the network architecture and the choice of the simulator. We showcase our approach on the bird's-eye-view vehicle segmentation task with multi-sensor data (cameras, lidar) using an open-source simulator (CARLA), and evaluate the entire framework on a real-world dataset (nuScenes). Last but not least, we show what types of variations (e.g.

Large language models have recently shown a remarkable ability for few-shot learning, including patterns of algorithmic nature. However, it is still an open question to determine what kind of patterns these models can capture and how many examples they need in their prompts. We frame this question as a teaching problem with strong priors, and study whether language models can identify simple algorithmic concepts from small witness sets. In particular, we explore how several GPT architectures, program induction systems and humans perform in terms of the complexity of the concept and the number of additional examples, and how much their behaviour differs. This first joint analysis of language models and machine teaching can address key questions for artificial intelligence and machine learning, such as whether some strong priors, and Occam's razor in particular, can be distilled from data, making learning from a few examples possible.

Given the intractably large size of the space of proofs, any model that is capable of general deductive reasoning must generalize to proofs of greater complexity. Recent studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) possess some abstract deductive reasoning ability given chain-of-thought prompts. However, they have primarily been tested on proofs using modus ponens or of a specific size, and from the same distribution as the in-context examples. To measure the general deductive reasoning ability of LLMs, we test on a broad set of deduction rules and measure their ability to generalize to more complex proofs from simpler demonstrations from multiple angles: depth-, width-, and compositional generalization. To facilitate systematic exploration, we construct a new synthetic and programmable reasoning dataset that enables control over deduction rules and proof complexity. Our experiments on four LLMs of various sizes and training objectives show that they are able to generalize to compositional proofs. However, they have difficulty generalizing to longer proofs, and they require explicit demonstrations to produce hypothetical subproofs, specifically in proof by cases and proof by contradiction.