Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40119019›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

A practical generalization metric for deep networks benchmarking.

Mengqing Huang, Hongchuan Yu, Jianjun Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mengqing HuangNational Centre for Computer Animation, Bournemouth University, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK.
Hongchuan YuNational Centre for Computer Animation, Bournemouth University, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK. hyu@bournemouth.ac.uk.
Jianjun ZhangNational Centre for Computer Animation, Bournemouth University, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an ongoing and dedicated effort to estimate bounds on the generalization error of deep learning models, coupled with an increasing interest with practical metrics that can be used to experimentally evaluate a model's ability to generalize. This interest is not only driven by practical considerations but is also vital for theoretical research, as theoretical estimations require practical validation. However, there is currently a lack of research on benchmarking the generalization capacity of various deep networks and verifying these theoretical estimations. This paper aims to introduce a practical generalization metric for benchmarking different deep networks and proposes a novel testbed for the verification of theoretical estimations. Our findings indicate that a deep network's generalization capacity in classification tasks is contingent upon both classification accuracy and the diversity of unseen data. The proposed metric system is capable of quantifying the accuracy of deep learning models and the diversity of data, providing an intuitive and quantitative evaluation method - a trade-off point. Furthermore, we compare our practical metric with existing generalization theoretical estimations using our benchmarking testbed. It is discouraging to note that most of the available generalization estimations do not correlate with the practical measurements obtained using our testbed. On the other hand, this finding is significant as it exposes the shortcomings of theoretical estimations and inspires new exploration.

Identifiers

PMID40119019
PMCPMC11928604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.