REVIEW 2 cited by
The Sample Complexity of Gradient Descent in Stochastic Convex Optimization
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
The Sample Complexity of Gradient Descent in Stochastic Convex Optimization
read the original abstract
We analyze the sample complexity of full-batch Gradient Descent (GD) in the setup of non-smooth Stochastic Convex Optimization. We show that the generalization error of GD, with common choice of hyper-parameters, can be $\tilde \Theta(d/m + 1/\sqrt{m})$, where $d$ is the dimension and $m$ is the sample size. This matches the sample complexity of \emph{worst-case} empirical risk minimizers. That means that, in contrast with other algorithms, GD has no advantage over naive ERMs. Our bound follows from a new generalization bound that depends on both the dimension as well as the learning rate and number of iterations. Our bound also shows that, for general hyper-parameters, when the dimension is strictly larger than number of samples, $T=\Omega(1/\epsilon^4)$ iterations are necessary to avoid overfitting. This resolves an open problem by Schlisserman et al.23 and Amir er Al.21, and improves over previous lower bounds that demonstrated that the sample size must be at least square root of the dimension.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Mirror Descent Beyond Euclidean Stability: An Exponential Separation in Initialization Sensitivity
Non-quadratic Mirror Descent exhibits exponential initialization sensitivity in convex settings, shown via 3D constructions and KL-regularized simplex examples, with Bregman anchoring proposed for stabilization.
-
Flat Minima and Generalization: Insights from Stochastic Convex Optimization
In smooth stochastic convex optimization, flat empirical minima can incur constant population risk while sharp minima generalize optimally, and sharpness-aware algorithms can converge to such bad flat minima.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.