A Note on "Assessing Generalization of SGD via Disagreement"

Jiang et al. (2021) give empirical evidence that the average test error of deep neural networks can be estimated via the prediction disagreement of two separately trained networks. They also provide a theoretical explanation that this 'Generalization Disagreement Equality' follows from the well-calibrated nature of deep ensembles under the notion of a proposed 'class-aggregated calibration'. In this paper we show that the approach suggested might be impractical because a deep ensemble's calibration deteriorates under distribution shift, which is exactly when the coupling of test error and disagreement would be of practical value. We present both theoretical and experimental evidence, re-deriving the theoretical statements using a simple Bayesian perspective and show them to be straightforward and more generic: they apply to any discriminative model -- not only ensembles whose members output one-hot class predictions. The proposed calibration metrics are also equivalent to two metrics introduced by Nixon et al. (2019): 'ACE' and 'SCE'.