What is a Good Metric to Study Generalization of Minimax Learners?
  Minimax optimization has served as the backbone of many machine learning (ML)
problems. Although the convergence behavior of optimization algorithms has been
extensively studied in minimax settings, their generalization guarantees in the
stochastic setting, i.e., how the solution trained on empirical data performs
on the unseen testing data, have been relatively underexplored. A fundamental
question remains elusive: What is a good metric to study generalization of
minimax learners? In this paper, we aim to answer this question by first
showing that primal risk, a universal metric to study generalization in
minimization, fails in simple examples of minimax problems. Furthermore,
another popular metric, the primal-dual risk, also fails to characterize the
generalization behavior for minimax problems with nonconvexity, due to
non-existence of saddle points. We thus propose a new metric to study
generalization of minimax learners: the primal gap, to circumvent these issues.
Next, we derive generalization bounds for the primal gap in nonconvex-concave
settings. As byproducts of our analysis, we also solve two open questions:
establishing generalization bounds for primal risk and primal-dual risk in the
strong sense, i.e., without strong concavity or assuming that the maximization
and expectation can be interchanged, while either of these assumptions was
needed in the literature. Finally, we leverage this new metric to compare the
generalization behavior of two popular algorithms -- gradient descent-ascent
(GDA) and gradient descent-max (GDMax) in stochastic minimax optimization.
