Does Order Matter : Connecting The Law of Robustness to Robust Generalization

Bubeck and Sellke (2021) pose as an open problem the connection between the law of robustness and robust generalization. The law of robustness states that overparameterization is necessary for models to interpolate robustly; in particular, robust interpolation requires the learned function to be Lipschitz. Robust generalization asks whether small robust training loss implies small robust test loss. We resolve this problem by explicitly connecting the two for arbitrary data distributions. Specifically, we introduce a nontrivial notion of robust generalization error and convert it into a lower bound on the expected Rademacher complexity of the induced robust loss class. Our bounds recover the $Ω(n^{1/d})$ regime of Wu et al. (2023) and show that, up to constants, robust generalization does not change the order of the Lipschitz constant required for smooth interpolation. We conduct experiments to probe the predicted scaling with dataset size and model capacity, testing whether empirical behavior aligns more closely with the predictions of Bubeck and Sellke (2021) or Wu et al. (2023). For MNIST, we find that the lower-bound Lipschitz constant scales on the order predicted by Wu et al. (2023). Informally, to obtain low robust generalization error, the Lipschitz constant must lie in a range that we bound, and the allowable perturbation radius is linked to the Lipschitz scale.

Fundamental limits for weighted empirical approximations of tilted distributions

Consider the task of generating samples from a tilted distribution of a random vector whose underlying distribution is unknown, but samples from it are available. This finds applications in fields such as finance and climate science, and in rare event simulation. In this article, we discuss the asymptotic efficiency of a self-normalized importance sampler of the tilted distribution. We provide a sharp characterization of its accuracy, given the number of samples and the degree of tilt. Our findings reveal a surprising dichotomy: while the number of samples needed to accurately tilt a bounded random vector increases polynomially in the tilt amount, it increases at a super polynomial rate for unbounded distributions.