Does Order Matter : Connecting The Law of Robustness to Robust Generalization
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
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.
Results and benchmarks
Bubeck and Sellke (2021) pose as an open problem the connection between the law of robustness and robust generalization.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPX