The Sample Complexity of Gradient Descent in Stochastic Convex Optimization

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 $\tilde Θ(d/m + 1/\sqrt{m})$, 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, $T=Ω(1/ε^4)$ 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.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer gMtP6/10 · confidence 2/52024-07-06

Summary

The paper shows a new lower bound for the generalization error of gradient descent for Lipschitz functions. The bound shows a linear dependency on the dimension that closes the gap between lower and upper bounds in the sample complexity of GD under several regimes. The construction of the function relies on a block version of a variation of Nemirovski function and a reduction from a sample-independent oracle to a sample-dependent oracle. The authors also propose a set of open problems related to the generalization error of GD.

Strengths

- The paper shows a clever way to make changes and leverage Nemirovski and Feldman's function so as to control the dynamics of the sub-differentials - The authors try to give the best intuition for the construction of the function in the presentation of the paper - The paper is technically challenging and the proofs have been explained well. I have read some parts of the proofs and didn't see any problem.

Weaknesses

- I think the main weakness in the paper is the presentation of the results and improvements. I know that these have all been written in the paper, but I found myself lost and rereading many times to see the significance of the results. This could be rewritten in a more concise way with all the improvements under which regimes spelled out explicitly (maybe a table would make sense). - There are a few typos: Line 294: sequences. Line 296: receive(s). Line 300: $S_{1:0}$, should S be bolded? Line 320: punctuation and line break. - It should be mentioned that Eq 16 will be proven in Appendix D.

Questions

- I'm really confused by the fact that all bounds and the proofs use $F(0)$ for the gap. Why is this the case? Why isn't it $\min_w F(w)$? If the algorithm starts at $w_0=0$, doesn't it mean the function value increases?

Rating

6

Confidence

2

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

3

Limitations

Yes

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-10

Yes, it's a typo, sorry for that. We have, $F(w)- \min_{w\in W} F(w) \ge F(w)- F(0)$ and not the other way around. This is also the direction we actually want. So, any lower bound of the type $F(w)-F(0) = \Omega(f(m,\eta,T,d))$ automatically yields a lower bound of the type: $F(w)- \min_{w\in W} F(w)= \Omega(f(m,\eta,T,d))$. In particular, theorem 1 corollary 2 and corollary 3 can all be stated with respect to the minimizer instead of $F(0)$. Does that answer your question?

Reviewer gMtP2024-08-13

Yes, I somehow was confused and didn't realize that. Thank you for the response! I maintain my current score.

Reviewer kB6m3/10 · confidence 2/52024-07-09

Summary

The paper proved a tight lower bound for the sample complexity of full-batch gradient descent. The authors also presented some open questions in this area.

Strengths

I think the paper is not ready.

Weaknesses

- The structure of the paper is not standard. There isn't any conclusion, and it seems that the paper is written in a very rushed manner. - The notation section is not well-written. - It seems that the main contribution of the paper is in Theorem 1, but it is not clear where its proof is located. The proof in the appendix is very short, and it appears that some parts of the proof are in the main body of the paper and some in the appendix. It is not organized very well.

Questions

I couldn't understand the paper very well, so I do not have any questions. Please refer to the weaknesses section.

Rating

3

Confidence

2

Soundness

1

Presentation

1

Contribution

2

Limitations

I think the paper is not ready for this conference, and I am not sure how important the result is.

Reviewer pMTh8/10 · confidence 5/52024-07-24

Summary

### Summary: The authors study the generalization error and sample complexity of GD for GD in stochastic CO. Their results show that one can achieve the generalization error of $\tilde{\Theta}(d/m + 1/\sqrt{m)}$ which is the same as the generalization error of ERM. Indeed, they prove that the linear dependence to dimension $d$ in unavoidable. Moreover, they show that $1/\epsilon^4$ steps are needed for GD to avoid overfitting where $\epsilon$ is the optmality gap.

Strengths

### Pros: - interesting theoretical problem/results - excellent citation to related work - extremely well-written

Weaknesses

### Cons: - some discussion about SGD is missing

Questions

### Questions/Comments: This is an excellent paper, I recomment acceptance as I found the paper well-written and the contributions/motivations are clear. - Can you explain how this analysis restricts to full-batch GD and what makes it impossible to obtain results for SGD? I recommend adding a bit of discussion to the paper regarding this.

Rating

8

Confidence

5

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

4

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer kmCP2024-08-09

Thank you to the authors for their detailed response. After considering your explanation and re-evaluating the manuscript, I now have a clearer understanding of how the oracle functions. Thanks for the clarification, and I maintain my original rating.

Reviewer gMtP2024-08-09

I thank the authors for the response. Regarding my question, Is there a typo where the authors wrote $F(w) - F(0) \ge F(w) - \min_w F(w)$ because it clearly should be the other direction. Here, my question explicitly is given an the bound on $F(w) - F(0)$, how to I obtain a bound for $F(w) - \min_w F(w)$, because it's not obvious to me, unless I'm missing something.

Reviewer pMTh2024-08-10

Thanks! I appreciate the authors' response and promise to include the new discussion in the next version of the paper. I still support accepting the paper, so I keep my score positive.

Reviewer kB6m2024-08-10

Dear Authors, I’m sorry that my score is lower than that of the other reviewers. As you requested, I reviewed the opinions of the other reviewers and noticed that reviewer gMtP also found this paper difficult to read. I even reread the paper to better understand it and reconsider my score, but I still couldn’t fully grasp the content. This remains my main issue with the paper. I’ve provided some suggestions that might help improve the paper. For example, adding a "Notation Section" and a "Conclusion Section" and reorganizing the paper and proofs to enhance readability would be beneficial. In its current version, your paper ends with a Lemma, which is quite unusual. As you can see, my confidence score is 2 because I couldn’t fully understand the paper, and therefore, I cannot give you a high score. However, if the other reviewers are confident in their scores and support accepting this paper, I will not oppose their decision. Additionally, during the remaining discussion period, I will make another effort to fully understand your work, and if possible, I will adjust my review accordingly.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC