What (Doesn't) Make Learning Algorithms Generalize?
summary
Shows that empirical risk minimization needs dimension-dependent samples (at least log D) while adding regularization yields 1/ε^2 sample complexity for stochastic convex optimization; full gradient descent can require m^2 steps to be stable and generalize, but stochastic gradient descent generalizes with only m steps despite producing predictors that fail conventional simplicity or stability tests. Proofs use a max-coordinate construction and assume a first-order oracle (value and gradient) to build explicit counterexamples and bounds.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (14)
- 0:00Intro
- 1:21Hardness of learning
- 2:55Common practice in machine learning
- 9:00Resolving Conundrum: Non uniform rates
- 10:35Example: Linear optimization
- 15:03Stochastic Convex Optimization as a case study
- 23:21Case Study1: Gradient Descent
- 26:35Implicit regularization?
- 28:19Case Study1.5: Regularized Gradient Descent
- 29:36Case Study 1.75: Any type regularized GD?
- 30:22Proof idea of ALK'21
- 31:41Case Study2: Stochastic Gradient Descent
- 33:05Proof (ignoring projections)
- 36:50SGD doesn't minimize the empirical risk
related talks
01h 01mRobustness, Stochastics, Uncertainty 1
01h 01mRobustness, Stochastics, Uncertainty 2
33mTradeoffs in Large Scale Learning: Statistical Accuracy vs. Numerical Precision
13mNon-Parametric Convergence Rates for Plain Vanilla Stochastic Gradient Descent
58mFirst-Order Stochastic Optimization
01h 03mOverview of Statistical Learning Theory Part 2
01h 05mOptimization for Machine Learning I
01h 02mPrediction, Generalization, Complexity: Revisiting the Classical View from Statistics Part 2
