From the perspective of statistical learning theory, (1) is rather intriguing. Moreover, they do not provide instance-wise matching lower bounds to verify the tightness of the upper bounds.

Empirically, large-scale deep learning models often satisfy a neural scaling law: the test error of the trained model improves polynomially as the model size and data size grow. However, conventional wisdom suggests the test error consists of approximation, bias, and variance errors, where the variance error increases with model size. This disagrees with the general form of neural scaling laws, which predict that increasing model size monotonically improves performance.We study the theory of scaling laws in an infinite dimensional linear regression setup. Specifically, we consider a model with $M$ parameters as a linear function of sketched covariates. The model is trained by one-pass stochastic gradient descent (SGD) using $N$ data. Assuming the optimal parameter satisfies a Gaussian prior and the data covariance matrix has a power-law spectrum of degree $a> 1$, we show that the reducible part of the test error is $\Theta(M^{-(a-1)} + N^{-(a-1)/a})$. The variance error, which increases with $M$, is dominated by the other errors due to the implicit regularization of SGD, thus disappearing from the bound. Our theory is consistent with the empirical neural scaling laws and verified by numerical simulation.

From the perspective of statistical learning theory, (1) is rather intriguing. Moreover, they do not provide instance-wise matching lower bounds to verify the tightness of the upper bounds.

If their analysis tricks do improve PG guarantees, how does it compare then? Reviewer 2: Q1: It would be interesting to complement the theoretical results with empirical results in toy problem. We are working on experiments and will add these results to the revision. Q2: For the error term that disappears with a larger mini-batch (line 211). A2: Y es, this error term should be called as variance error.

Existing theory suggests that for linear regression problems categorized by capacity and source conditions, gradient descent (GD) is always minimax optimal, while both ridge regression and online stochastic gradient descent (SGD) are polynomially suboptimal for certain categories of such problems. Moving beyond minimax theory, this work provides instance-wise comparisons of the finite-sample risks for these algorithms on any well-specified linear regression problem. Our analysis yields three key findings. First, GD dominates ridge regression: with comparable regularization, the excess risk of GD is always within a constant factor of ridge, but ridge can be polynomially worse even when tuned optimally. Second, GD is incomparable with SGD. While it is known that for certain problems GD can be polynomially better than SGD, the reverse is also true: we construct problems, inspired by benign overfitting theory, where optimally stopped GD is polynomially worse. Finally, GD dominates SGD for a significant subclass of problems -- those with fast and continuously decaying covariance spectra -- which includes all problems satisfying the standard capacity condition.

Empirically, large-scale deep learning models often satisfy a neural scaling law: the test error of the trained model improves polynomially as the model size and data size grow. However, conventional wisdom suggests the test error consists of approximation, bias, and variance errors, where the variance error increases with model size. This disagrees with the general form of neural scaling laws, which predict that increasing model size monotonically improves performance.We study the theory of scaling laws in an infinite dimensional linear regression setup. Specifically, we consider a model with M parameters as a linear function of sketched covariates. The model is trained by one-pass stochastic gradient descent (SGD) using N data. Assuming the optimal parameter satisfies a Gaussian prior and the data covariance matrix has a power-law spectrum of degree a 1, we show that the reducible part of the test error is \Theta(M {-(a-1)} N {-(a-1)/a}) .

Exponential moving average (EMA) has recently gained significant popularity in training modern deep learning models, especially diffusion-based generative models. However, there have been few theoretical results explaining the effectiveness of EMA. In this paper, to better understand EMA, we establish the risk bound of online SGD with EMA for high-dimensional linear regression, one of the simplest overparameterized learning tasks that shares similarities with neural networks. Our results indicate that (i) the variance error of SGD with EMA is always smaller than that of SGD without averaging, and (ii) unlike SGD with iterate averaging from the beginning, the bias error of SGD with EMA decays exponentially in every eigen-subspace of the data covariance matrix. Additionally, we develop proof techniques applicable to the analysis of a broad class of averaging schemes.

Empirically, large-scale deep learning models often satisfy a neural scaling law: the test error of the trained model improves polynomially as the model size and data size grow. However, conventional wisdom suggests the test error consists of approximation, bias, and variance errors, where the variance error increases with model size. This disagrees with the general form of neural scaling laws, which predict that increasing model size monotonically improves performance. We study the theory of scaling laws in an infinite dimensional linear regression setup. Specifically, we consider a model with $M$ parameters as a linear function of sketched covariates. The model is trained by one-pass stochastic gradient descent (SGD) using $N$ data. Assuming the optimal parameter satisfies a Gaussian prior and the data covariance matrix has a power-law spectrum of degree $a>1$, we show that the reducible part of the test error is $\Theta(M^{-(a-1)} + N^{-(a-1)/a})$. The variance error, which increases with $M$, is dominated by the other errors due to the implicit regularization of SGD, thus disappearing from the bound. Our theory is consistent with the empirical neural scaling laws and verified by numerical simulation.

We obtain asymptotically sharp error estimates for the consistency error of the Target Measure Diffusion map (TMDmap) (Banisch et al. 2020), a variant of diffusion maps featuring importance sampling and hence allowing input data drawn from an arbitrary density. The derived error estimates include the bias error and the variance error. The resulting convergence rates are consistent with the approximation theory of graph Laplacians. The key novelty of our results lies in the explicit quantification of all the prefactors on leading-order terms. We also prove an error estimate for solutions of Dirichlet BVPs obtained using TMDmap, showing that the solution error is controlled by consistency error. We use these results to study an important application of TMDmap in the analysis of rare events in systems governed by overdamped Langevin dynamics using the framework of transition path theory (TPT). The cornerstone ingredient of TPT is the solution of the committor problem, a boundary value problem for the backward Kolmogorov PDE. Remarkably, we find that the TMDmap algorithm is particularly suited as a meshless solver to the committor problem due to the cancellation of several error terms in the prefactor formula. Furthermore, significant improvements in bias and variance errors occur when using a quasi-uniform sampling density. Our numerical experiments show that these improvements in accuracy are realizable in practice when using $\delta$-nets as spatially uniform inputs to the TMDmap algorithm.

Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) has been demonstrated to generalize well in many deep learning applications. In practice, one often runs SGD with a geometrically decaying stepsize, i.e., a constant initial stepsize followed by multiple geometric stepsize decay, and uses the last iterate as the output. This kind of SGD is known to be nearly minimax optimal for classical finite-dimensional linear regression problems (Ge et al., 2019), and provably outperforms SGD with polynomially decaying stepsize in terms of the statistical minimax rates. However, a sharp analysis for the last iterate of SGD with decaying step size in the overparameterized setting is still open. In this paper, we provide problem-dependent analysis on the last iterate risk bounds of SGD with decaying stepsize, for (overparameterized) linear regression problems. In particular, for SGD with geometrically decaying stepsize (or tail geometrically decaying stepsize), we prove nearly matching upper and lower bounds on the excess risk. Our results demonstrate the generalization ability of SGD for a wide class of overparameterized problems, and can recover the minimax optimal results up to logarithmic factors in the classical regime. Moreover, we provide an excess risk lower bound for SGD with polynomially decaying stepsize and illustrate the advantage of geometrically decaying stepsize in an instance-wise manner, which complements the minimax rate comparison made in previous work.