As the scale of machine learning models increases, trends such as scaling laws anticipate consistent downstream improvements in predictive accuracy. However, these trends take the perspective of a single model-provider in isolation, while in reality providers often compete with each other for users. In this work, we demonstrate that competition can fundamentally alter the behavior of these scaling trends, even causing overall predictive accuracy across users to be non-monotonic or decreasing with scale. We define a model of competition for classification tasks, and use data representations as a lens for studying the impact of increases in scale. We find many settings where improving data representation quality (as measured by Bayes risk) decreases the overall predictive accuracy across users (i.e., social welfare) for a marketplace of competing model-providers. Our examples range from closed-form formulas in simple settings to simulations with pretrained representations on CIFAR-10. At a conceptual level, our work suggests that favorable scaling trends for individual model-providers need not translate to downstream improvements in social welfare in marketplaces with multiple model providers.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

This setup contains a vast array of fundamental applications in machine learning, engineering, neuroscience, finance, statisticsandinformation theory [1-10].

Class imbalance significantly degrades classification performance, yet its effects are rarely analyzed from a unified theoretical perspective. We propose a principled framework based on three fundamental scales: the imbalance coefficient $η$, the sample--dimension ratio $κ$, and the intrinsic separability $Δ$. Starting from the Gaussian Bayes classifier, we derive closed-form Bayes errors and show how imbalance shifts the discriminant boundary, yielding a deterioration slope that predicts four regimes: Normal, Mild, Extreme, and Catastrophic. Using a balanced high-dimensional genomic dataset, we vary only $η$ while keeping $κ$ and $Δ$ fixed. Across parametric and non-parametric models, empirical degradation closely follows theoretical predictions: minority Recall collapses once $\log(η)$ exceeds $Δ\sqrtκ$, Precision increases asymmetrically, and F1-score and PR-AUC decline in line with the predicted regimes. These results show that the triplet $(η,κ,Δ)$ provides a model-agnostic, geometrically grounded explanation of imbalance-induced deterioration.

Bayesian models are established as one of the main successful paradigms for complex problems in machine learning. To handle intractable inference, research in this area has developed new approximation methods that are fast and effective. However, theoretical analysis of the performance of such approximations is not well developed. The paper furthers such analysis by providing bounds on the excess risk of variational inference algorithms and related regularized loss minimization algorithms for a large class of latent variable models with Gaussian latent variables. We strengthen previous results for variational algorithms by showing they are competitive with any point-estimate predictor. Unlike previous work, we also provide bounds on the risk of the \emph{Bayesian} predictor and not just the risk of the Gibbs predictor for the same approximate posterior. The bounds are applied in complex models including sparse Gaussian processes and correlated topic models. Theoretical results are complemented by identifying novel approximations to the Bayesian objective that attempt to minimize the risk directly. An empirical evaluation compares the variational and new algorithms shedding further light on their performance.