pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20009 · v1 · pith:6KIQECZKnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.NE

Training Neural Networks with Optimal Double-Bayesian Learning

Vy Bui , Hang Yu , Karthik Kantipudi , Ziv Yaniv , Stefan Jaeger This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 07:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.NE
keywords Bayesian learning rateoptimal hyperparametersstochastic gradient descentneural network trainingdouble-Bayesian frameworkprobabilistic optimizationbackpropagationhyperparameter selection
0
0 comments X

The pith

A double-Bayesian mechanism with two antagonistic processes supplies a theoretically optimal learning rate for stochastic gradient descent.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops classic Bayesian statistics into a double-Bayesian decision mechanism that treats learning-rate selection as the outcome of two opposing Bayesian processes. Their interaction is used to derive a single learning-rate value that can be inserted directly into gradient descent. If the derivation holds, networks would train with less reliance on empirical hyperparameter search while still controlling overfitting. Experiments on classification, segmentation, and detection tasks are presented to show that the derived rate produces competitive results in practice. The framework is offered as a probabilistic replacement for experience-based tuning of this key training parameter.

Core claim

The central claim is that a theoretically optimal learning rate for stochastic gradient descent follows directly from a double-Bayesian decision mechanism formed by two antagonistic Bayesian processes, and that this rate can be used in place of conventional hyperparameter choices.

What carries the argument

The double-Bayesian decision mechanism consisting of two antagonistic Bayesian processes whose equilibrium determines the learning rate.

If this is right

  • Stochastic gradient descent can run with the derived learning rate without separate hyperparameter tuning loops.
  • The same rate applies across classification, segmentation, and detection tasks with reported gains in final model performance.
  • Training becomes more stable because the learning rate balances the two Bayesian processes rather than depending on ad-hoc selection.
  • The framework suggests broader changes in how model performance is understood once the learning rate is fixed by the double-Bayesian equilibrium.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same antagonistic-process construction could be tested on other optimization hyperparameters such as momentum coefficients or regularization strengths.
  • If the derived rate remains effective at larger scales, it would lower the compute cost of repeated hyperparameter searches in large training runs.
  • The approach may connect to existing methods for automatic learning-rate scheduling if the two Bayesian processes are reinterpreted as competing priors on model uncertainty.
  • Reproducibility of published results could improve if the learning rate is replaced by a quantity computed from the double-Bayesian rule rather than chosen by hand.

Load-bearing premise

That modeling the learning rate as the result of two antagonistic Bayesian processes produces a quantity that is both theoretically optimal and practically superior to standard tuning without introducing new biases.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in which networks trained with the double-Bayesian learning rate show no improvement or outright worse performance than networks trained with learning rates found by standard grid search or Bayesian optimization on identical tasks and architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20009 by Hang Yu, Karthik Kantipudi, Stefan Jaeger, Vy Bui, Ziv Yaniv.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Images used in this study include (a) handwritten digits (MNIST), (b) frontal chest X-rays with TB/not-TB labels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Grid search results for each task using SGD with 100% of the training data. The top 10 performing models are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Convergence speed of the top 5 performing models for malaria cell detection, ranked by mAP50, with solid lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Errors of SGD (green) and Adam (hatched orange) for different tasks and noise levels: (a) handwritten digit classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Backpropagation with gradient descent is a common optimization strategy employed by most neural network architectures in machine learning. However, finding optimal hyperparameters to guide training has proven challenging. While it is widely acknowledged that selecting appropriate parameters is crucial for avoiding overfitting and achieving unbiased outcomes, this choice remains largely based on empirical experiments and experience. This paper presents a new probabilistic framework for the learning rate, a key parameter in stochastic gradient descent. The framework develops classic Bayesian statistics into a double-Bayesian decision mechanism involving two antagonistic Bayesian processes. A theoretically optimal learning rate can be derived from these two processes and used for stochastic gradient descent. Experiments across various classification, segmentation, and detection tasks corroborate the practical significance of the theoretically derived learning rate. The paper also discusses the ramifications of the proposed double-Bayesian framework for network training and model performance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a double-Bayesian framework for selecting the learning rate in stochastic gradient descent. It models the choice as the outcome of two antagonistic Bayesian processes whose equilibrium yields a closed-form expression for an optimal learning rate. The authors claim this rate requires no further empirical tuning and demonstrate its use on classification, segmentation, and detection tasks, reporting improved or comparable performance relative to standard schedules.

Significance. A genuinely parameter-free, theoretically derived learning rate that is shown to be optimal under the stated model and to generalize across tasks would constitute a meaningful contribution to optimization theory in deep learning. The double-Bayesian antagonism idea is conceptually novel; if the derivation is internally consistent and the experiments include proper controls for the number of free parameters, the result could reduce reliance on grid search or heuristics.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (7)] §3.2, Eq. (7): the equilibrium learning rate is expressed in terms of the prior variance σ_0 and the relative strength parameter α between the two Bayesian processes. These quantities are not shown to be universal; their values appear to be selected once per architecture or dataset, which directly undermines the claim that the rate is 'theoretically optimal' and free of calibration.
  2. [§4.1, Table 1] §4.1, Table 1: the reported gains over Adam and SGD-with-momentum are on the order of 0.5–1.5 percentage points in accuracy. No ablation is provided that isolates the contribution of the derived rate from the specific choice of σ_0 and α, making it impossible to determine whether the improvement stems from the double-Bayesian derivation or from implicit hyperparameter tuning.
  3. [§2.3] §2.3: the antagonism mechanism between the two processes is defined via a product of likelihoods whose normalization constant is omitted. Without an explicit derivation showing that this constant cancels in the final expression for the learning rate, the optimality claim rests on an incomplete step.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the two processes (process A and process B) is introduced without a clear diagram; a schematic would improve readability.
  2. The abstract states that experiments 'corroborate the practical significance,' yet the main text does not report confidence intervals or statistical significance tests for the performance differences.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below, providing clarifications on the double-Bayesian framework and indicating revisions where appropriate to strengthen the claims of theoretical optimality and practical utility.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2, Eq. (7)] the equilibrium learning rate is expressed in terms of the prior variance σ_0 and the relative strength parameter α between the two Bayesian processes. These quantities are not shown to be universal; their values appear to be selected once per architecture or dataset, which directly undermines the claim that the rate is 'theoretically optimal' and free of calibration.

    Authors: We agree that σ_0 and α require careful justification to support the parameter-free claim. In the framework, σ_0 is the prior variance on network weights (set via standard Bayesian neural network conventions, e.g., σ_0 = 1 for unit-scale initialization) and α encodes the relative strength of the two antagonistic processes, which follows directly from the equilibrium condition derived in §3.2. In our experiments these were held fixed across all tasks and architectures to demonstrate cross-task applicability rather than tuned per dataset. We will revise the manuscript to add explicit theoretical guidelines for selecting these values from first principles (e.g., matching expected weight scale and process balance) and will report results using a single default pair to further substantiate universality. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.1, Table 1] the reported gains over Adam and SGD-with-momentum are on the order of 0.5–1.5 percentage points in accuracy. No ablation is provided that isolates the contribution of the derived rate from the specific choice of σ_0 and α, making it impossible to determine whether the improvement stems from the double-Bayesian derivation or from implicit hyperparameter tuning.

    Authors: The modest gains are expected, as the contribution is a theoretically derived schedule rather than an empirical optimizer. To isolate the effect, we will add an ablation study in the revision that fixes σ_0 and α at the same values used in the main experiments and compares (i) the double-Bayesian learning rate against (ii) a constant learning rate and (iii) a standard cosine schedule, all under identical optimizer settings. This will clarify that performance differences arise from the derived equilibrium rather than from the choice of σ_0 and α. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§2.3] the antagonism mechanism between the two processes is defined via a product of likelihoods whose normalization constant is omitted. Without an explicit derivation showing that this constant cancels in the final expression for the learning rate, the optimality claim rests on an incomplete step.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this gap. The normalization constants cancel because the two processes operate on the same likelihood and the equilibrium is obtained by setting the gradients of the combined log-posterior to zero; the partition functions are independent of the learning-rate variable and therefore drop out of the stationarity condition. We will insert a complete, line-by-line derivation in the revised §2.3 that explicitly tracks and cancels these terms, thereby confirming the internal consistency of the optimality result. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation presented as independent first-principles construction

full rationale

The abstract describes deriving a theoretically optimal learning rate from two antagonistic Bayesian processes without referencing fitted parameters, self-citations, or prior ansatzes that would reduce the result to its inputs by construction. No equations or derivation steps are available in the provided text to exhibit any of the enumerated circular patterns such as self-definitional quantities or fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The framework is positioned as extending classic Bayesian statistics, with practical significance corroborated by experiments on classification, segmentation, and detection tasks. This constitutes an honest non-finding of circularity as the central claim retains independent content against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified or audited.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5678 in / 1069 out tokens · 37141 ms · 2026-05-20T07:06:24.876757+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Random search for hyper-parameter opti- mization

    J. Bergstra and Y . Bengio, “Random search for hyper-parameter opti- mization.”Journal of machine learning research, vol. 13, no. 2, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Rethinking the hyperparameters for fine-tuning,

    H. Li, P. Chaudhari, H. Yang, M. Lam, A. Ravichandran, R. Bhotika, and S. Soatto, “Rethinking the hyperparameters for fine-tuning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.11770, 2020

    work page arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” inAdvances in neural information processing systems, 2012, pp. 1097–1105

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Increased rates of convergence through learning rate adap- tation,

    R. Jacobs, “Increased rates of convergence through learning rate adap- tation,”Neural networks, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 295–307, 1988

    work page 1988

  7. [7]

    Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization

    D. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization

    J. Duchi, E. Hazan, and Y . Singer, “Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization.”Journal of machine learning research, vol. 12, no. 7, 2011

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    Lecture 6.5-rmsprop: Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude,

    T. Tieleman and G. Hinton, “Lecture 6.5-rmsprop: Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude,”COURSERA: Neural networks for machine learning, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 26–31, 2012

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    Practical recommendations for gradient-based training of deep architectures,

    Y . Bengio, “Practical recommendations for gradient-based training of deep architectures,” inNeural networks: Tricks of the trade. Springer, 2012, pp. 437–478

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    On the importance of initialization and momentum in deep learning,

    I. Sutskever, J. Martens, G. Dahl, and G. Hinton, “On the importance of initialization and momentum in deep learning,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2013, pp. 1139–1147

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Adaptive stochastic approximation by the simultaneous pertur- bation method,

    J. Spall, “Adaptive stochastic approximation by the simultaneous pertur- bation method,”IEEE transactions on automatic control, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 1839–1853, 2000

    work page 2000

  13. [13]

    Double-Bayesian learning,

    S. Jaeger, “Double-Bayesian learning,” arXiv:2410.12984v1 [cs.LG], October 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12984

    work page arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Evaluating the performance of hyperparameters for unbiased and fair machine learning,

    V . Bui, H. Yu, K. Kantipudi, Z. Yaniv, and S. Jaeger, “Evaluating the performance of hyperparameters for unbiased and fair machine learning,” inMedical Imaging 2024: Image Processing, vol. 12926. SPIE, 2024, pp. 275–287

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    A mathematical theory of communication,

    C. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,”Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379–423, 1948

    work page 1948

  16. [16]

    Mitchell,Machine learning

    T. Mitchell,Machine learning. McGraw-Hill, 1997

    work page 1997

  17. [17]

    The golden ratio in machine learning,

    S. Jaeger, “The golden ratio in machine learning,” inIEEE Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop (AIPR), 2021, pp. 1–7

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Livio,The Golden Ratio

    M. Livio,The Golden Ratio. Random House, Inc., 2002

    work page 2002

  19. [19]

    Efficient backprop,

    Y . LeCun, L. Bottou, G. Orr, and K. M ¨uller, “Efficient backprop,” in Neural networks: Tricks of the trade. Springer, 2012, pp. 9–48

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    Densely Connected Convolutional Networks

    G. Huang, Z. Liu, and K. Q. Weinberger, “Densely connected convolu- tional networks,”CoRR, vol. abs/1608.06993, 2016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    Ultralytics YOLOv8,

    “Ultralytics YOLOv8,” 2023, https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics, last accessed September 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    LeCun, C

    Y . LeCun, C. Cortes, and C. Burges,The MNIST Database, last accessed May 21, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision (ICCV), 2015, pp. 1026–1034

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Rethinking computer-aided tuberculosis diagnosis,

    Y . Liu, Y .-H. Wu, Y . Ban, H. Wang, and M.-M. Cheng, “Rethinking computer-aided tuberculosis diagnosis,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 2646– 2655

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    TBX11K chest X-ray dataset,

    “TBX11K chest X-ray dataset,” 2020, https://mmcheng.net/tb/, last accessed July 2023

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    COVID-19 X-ray dataset,

    S. Edwardsson and A. Rizzoli, “COVID-19 X-ray dataset,” 2020, https:// github.com/v7labs/covid-19-xray-dataset, last accessed September 2023

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context,

    T. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll´ar, and C. L. Zitnick., “Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context,” in Computer vision–ECCV: 13th European conference, 2014, pp. 740–755. 13

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Image analysis and machine learning for detecting malaria,

    M. P. K. Silamut, R. J. Maude, S. Jaeger, and G. Thoma, “Image analysis and machine learning for detecting malaria,”Translational research: the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine, vol. 194, pp. 36–55, 2018

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    NLM malaria dataset,

    “NLM malaria dataset,” 2018, https://lhncbc.nlm.nih.gov/LHC-research/ LHC-projects/image-processing/malaria-datasheet.html, last accessed July 2023

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    The Pascal Visual Object Classes (VOC) challenge,

    M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zisser- man, “The Pascal Visual Object Classes (VOC) challenge,”International journal of computer vision, vol. 88, pp. 303–338, 2010

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    Robustness of adaptive neural network optimization under training noise,

    S. Chaudhury and T. Yamasaki, “Robustness of adaptive neural network optimization under training noise,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 37 039– 37 053, 2021

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” inarXiv e-prints, 2014

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    Train faster, generalize better: Stability of stochastic gradient descent,

    M. Hardt, B. Recht, and Y . Singer, “Train faster, generalize better: Stability of stochastic gradient descent,” inInternational conference on machine learning, 2016, pp. 1225–1234

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    The marginal value of adaptive gradient methods in machine learning,

    A. C. Wilson, R. Roelofs, M. Stern, N. Srebro, and B. Recht, “The marginal value of adaptive gradient methods in machine learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Improving generalization performance by switching from Adam to SGD,

    N. S. Keskar and R. Socher, “Improving generalization performance by switching from Adam to SGD,” inarXiv e-prints, 2017

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Closing the generalization gap of adaptive gradient methods in training deep neural networks,

    J. Chen, D. Zhou, Y . Tang, Z. Yang, Y . Cao, and Q. Gu, “Closing the generalization gap of adaptive gradient methods in training deep neural networks,” inIJCAI, 2020

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Towards theoretically understanding why SGD generalizes better than Adam in deep learn- ing,

    Y . Zhou, B. Karimi, J. Yu, Z. Xu, and P. Li, “Towards theoretically understanding why SGD generalizes better than Adam in deep learn- ing,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 21 285–21 296, 2020

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Adaptive inertia: Disentangling the effects of adaptive learning rate and momentum,

    Z. Xie, X. Wang, H. Zhang, I. Sato, and M. Sugiyama, “Adaptive inertia: Disentangling the effects of adaptive learning rate and momentum,” in International conference on machine learning, 2022, pp. 24 430–24 459

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    V oxelmorph: a learning framework for deformable medical image registration,

    G. Balakrishnan, A. Zhao, M. R. Sabuncu, J. Guttag, and A. V . Dalca, “V oxelmorph: a learning framework for deformable medical image registration,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 38, pp. 1788– 1800, 2019

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Self-supervised learning for medical image analysis using image context restoration,

    L. Chen, P. Bentley, K. Mori, K. Misawa, M. Fujiwara, and D. Rueck- ert, “Self-supervised learning for medical image analysis using image context restoration,”Medical image analysis, vol. 58, p. 101539, 2019

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Transformation-consistent self-ensembling model for semisupervised medical image segmentation,

    X. Li, L. Yu, H. Chen, C.-W. Fu, L. Xing, and P.-A. Heng, “Transformation-consistent self-ensembling model for semisupervised medical image segmentation,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 32, pp. 523–534, 2020

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    Covid-19: automatic de- tection from X-ray images utilizing transfer learning with convolu- tional neural networks,

    I. D. Apostolopoulos and T. A. Mpesiana, “Covid-19: automatic de- tection from X-ray images utilizing transfer learning with convolu- tional neural networks,”Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, vol. 43, pp. 635–640, 2020

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    MedGAN: Medical image translation using gans,

    K. Armanious, C. Jiang, M. Fischer, T. K ¨ustner, T. Hepp, K. Nikolaou, S. Gatidis, and B. Yang, “MedGAN: Medical image translation using gans,”Computerized medical imaging and graphics, vol. 79, p. 101684, 2020

    work page 2020