Scale-Sensitive Shattering: Learnability and Evaluability at Optimal Scale

We study the optimal scale at which real-valued function classes exhibit uniform convergence and learnability. Our main result establishes a scale-sensitive generalization of the fundamental theorem of PAC learning: for every bounded real-valued class and every $γ>0$, uniform convergence at scale $γ$, agnostic learnability at scale $γ/2$, and finiteness of the fat-shattering dimension at every scale $γ'>γ$ are equivalent. This resolves a question by Anthony and Bartlett (Cambridge Univ. Press 1999) on the precise scales governing learnability, refuting a conjecture attributed there to Phil Long that a multiplicative 2-factor gap is unavoidable, and improves the upper bounds of Bartlett and Long (JCSS 1998), which incur such a loss. The key technical ingredient is a direct bound on empirical $\ell_\infty$ covering numbers, avoiding the standard detour through packing numbers. As a consequence, we obtain sharp asymptotic metric-entropy bounds in terms of the fat-shattering scale $γ$: an $O(\log^2 n)$ bound holds already at scale $γ/2$, while an $O(\log n)$ bound holds at scale $2γ$. We further show that the $O(\log^2 n)$ bound is sometimes tight. These results resolve open questions by Alon et al. (JACM 1997) and Rudelson and Vershynin (Ann. of Math. 2006). As an application, we establish a sharp dichotomy for bounded integral probability metrics: every such IPM is either estimable or cannot be weakly evaluated within any multiplicative factor $c<3$, while $3$-weak evaluability always holds, resolving an open question from Aiyer et al. (ICML 2026). We also highlight several open questions on quantitative sample complexity and evaluability.

A Theoretical Framework for Statistical Evaluability of Generative Models

Statistical evaluation aims to estimate the generalization performance of a model using held-out i.i.d.\ test data sampled from the ground-truth distribution. In supervised learning settings such as classification, performance metrics such as error rate are well-defined, and test error reliably approximates population error given sufficiently large datasets. In contrast, evaluation is more challenging for generative models due to their open-ended nature: it is unclear which metrics are appropriate and whether such metrics can be reliably evaluated from finite samples. In this work, we introduce a theoretical framework for evaluating generative models and establish evaluability results for commonly used metrics. We study two categories of metrics: test-based metrics, including integral probability metrics (IPMs), and Rényi divergences. We show that IPMs with respect to any bounded test class can be evaluated from finite samples up to multiplicative and additive approximation errors. Moreover, when the test class has finite fat-shattering dimension, IPMs can be evaluated with arbitrary precision. In contrast, Rényi and KL divergences are not evaluable from finite samples, as their values can be critically determined by rare events. We also analyze the potential and limitations of perplexity as an evaluation method.