Architecture-Aware Generalization Bounds for Temporal Networks: Theory and Fair Comparison Methodology

Gahtan, Barak, Bronstein, Alex M.

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence 

Deep temporal architectures such as TCNs achieve strong predictive performance on sequential data, yet theoretical understanding of their generalization remains limited. We address this gap through three contributions: introducing an evaluation methodology for temporal models, revealing surprising empirical phenomena about temporal dependence, and the first architecture-aware theoretical framework for dependent sequences. Fair-Comparison Methodology. We introduce evaluation protocols that fix effective sample size $N_{\text{eff}}$ to isolate temporal structure effects from information content. Empirical Findings. Applying this method reveals that under $N_{\text{eff}} = 2000$, strongly dependent sequences ($ρ= 0.8$) exhibit approx' $76\%$ smaller generalization gaps than weakly dependent ones ($ρ= 0.2$), challenging the conventional view that dependence universally impedes learning. However, observed convergence rates ($N_{\text{eff}}^{-1.21}$ to $N_{\text{eff}}^{-0.89}$) significantly exceed theoretical worst-case predictions ($N^{-0.5}$), revealing that temporal architectures exploit problem structure in ways current theory does not capture. Lastly, we develop the first architecture-aware generalization bounds for deep temporal models on exponentially $β$-mixing sequences. By embedding Golowich et al.'s i.i.d. class bound within a novel blocking scheme that partitions $N$ samples into approx' $B \approx N/\log N$ quasi-independent blocks, we establish polynomial sample complexity under convex Lipschitz losses. The framework achieves $\sqrt{D}$ depth scaling alongside the product of layer-wise norms $R = \prod_{\ell=1}^{D} M^{(\ell)}$, avoiding exponential dependence. While these bounds are conservative, they prove learnability and identify architectural scaling laws, providing worst-case baselines that highlight where future theory must improve.

Duplicate Docs Excel Report

Title
None found

Similar Docs  Excel Report  more

TitleSimilaritySource
None found