Universal Rates of Empirical Risk Minimization

The well-known empirical risk minimization (ERM) principle is the basis of many widely used machine learning algorithms, and plays an essential role in the classical PAC theory. A common description of a learning algorithm's performance is its so-called"learning curve", that is, the decay of the expected error as a function of the input sample size. As the PAC model fails to explain the behavior of learning curves, recent research has explored an alternative universal learning model and has ultimately revealed a distinction between optimal universal and uniform learning rates (Bousquet et al., 2021). However, a basic understanding of such differences with a particular focus on the ERM principle has yet to be developed. In this paper, we consider the problem of universal learning by ERM in the realizable case and study the possible universal rates. Our main result is a fundamental tetrachotomy: there are only four possible universal learning rates by ERM, namely, the learning curves of any concept class learnable by ERM decay either at $e^{-n}$, $1/n$, $\log(n)/n$, or arbitrarily slow rates. Moreover, we provide a complete characterization of which concept classes fall into each of these categories, via new complexity structures. We also develop new combinatorial dimensions which supply sharp asymptotically-valid constant factors for these rates, whenever possible.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer NPxP9/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-10

Summary

In this paper, the authors build on earlier work in learning theory that provides an alternative to the classical PAC theory in the setting of realizable binary classification. That earlier work considered *universal* learning rates, where a rate is universal if the data source is fixed across sample sizes (as opposed to being allowed to depend on the sample size &n&) and demonstrated a trichotomy in the possible rates of learning. The present work considers a similar setting, where the data distribution is fixed and $n$ increases, but analyzes only the natural algorithm ERM. As opposed to the earlier setting where arbitrary algorithms are allowed, the universal learning rates of ERM satisfy a tetrachotomy, depending on several technical combinatorial notions of complexity of the hypothesis class. The paper complements their theoretical results with a number of concrete examples of hypothesis classes that fall into different cases of the tetrachotomy as well as comparing these cases to the universal rates attainable with more general algorithms than ERM.

Strengths

The paper presents interesting and valuable contributions to statistical learning theory, following in the footsteps of an earlier work that seeks to understand learning beyond the classical PAC setting. The algorithm considered, ERM, is classical and the standard approach to virtually all supervised learning problems and thus is an important setting to understand, hewing closer to practice than the more involved algorithms of the earlier work to study universal rates. Furthermore, the presentation is excellent, with a number of helpful concrete examples included for grounding and clear exposition on the technical combinatorial details.

Weaknesses

The primary weakness of the work is the restrictive assumption of realizability, as well as the focus purely on binary classification. In the setting studied, however, the paper does a good job of essentially completely answering the question of the universal rates. There is a minor gap in the combinatorial characterization of when rates $1/n$ vs $\log(n)/n$ are expected, but this limitation is adequately discussed in Remark 3.

Questions

1. Are the algorithms that Bousquet et al 2021 use to demonstrate universal learning rates in the absence of computational considerations oracle-efficient with respect to an ERM oracle? If not, it might be good to emphasize this point. If so, what are the computational advantages of considering ERM? 2. A minor typo: in example 6, the VC dimension of halfspaces is $d+1$ not $d$. 3. In the conclusion, you suggest the study of "best-case ERM," but I am confused as to what that means?

Rating

9

Confidence

4

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors have adequately addressed the limitations.

Reviewer qCB25/10 · confidence 1/52024-07-11

Summary

This paper studies the performance of ERM on realizable binary classification problems in the "Universal learning" framework of [1]. Specifically, the original work [1] showed that the optimal universal rate of convergence was in general not achieved by ERM procedures. Nevertheless, characterizing the universal rate of convergence of ERM procedures as a function of the hypothesis class in this setting is still interesting as these procedures are widely used in practice. This paper tackles this question and shows that if a hypothesis class $\mathcal{H}$ is universally learnable by ERM procedures, then the universal rate of convergence of the worst ERM procedure is either $\exp(-n)$, $1/n$, $\log(n)/n$ or arbitrarily slow. Necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of properties of $\mathcal{H}$ are given that indicate which of these cases occurs. A second result provides a more refined such characterization as a function of the target function $h_{*} \in \mathcal{H}$ as well. [1]: Bousquet, O., Hanneke, S., Moran, S., Van Handel, R., and Yehudayoff, A. (2021), “A theory of universal learning,” in Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 532–541.

Strengths

+ The problem studied as well as the results are interesting.

Weaknesses

+ The writing of the paper is at times uncomfortably close to that [1].

Questions

minor comments: + lines 69-70: "unlike that" -> "while". + line 72: "to the characterization of" -> "characterizing". + line 82: "necessary" -> "necessarily". + line 107: "exist" -> "exists". + line 108: "it requires us" -> "we need"

Rating

5

Confidence

1

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

A main limitation of this work is that it does not characterize when a class is universally learnable by ERM. This is mentionned in lines 147-150. More discussion about why this is difficult to achieve would enhance the paper.

Reviewer MghQ6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-11

Summary

The main goal of the proposed work is to understand the learning procedure with a focus on Empirical risk minimization. The authors claim to provide a complete picture of the four possibilities of different learning rates by ERM. The work also introduces many new concepts related to combinatorial dimensions.

Strengths

The paper is extremely well-written. I appreciate the effort put in by the authors to provide such a clear exposition. One of this paper's key strengths is exploring and finally characterizing all possible universal learning rates by ERM for the first time. I particularly like the detailed picture featuring the dichotomies between several learning rates with particular examples.

Weaknesses

The paper is overall an enjoyable read, but I am not entirely sure how well it fits NeurIPS since the work is mostly theoretical and centred around learning theory. I believe the paper would be more suitable for a venue entirely dedicated to learning theory, such as COLT.

Questions

Can the authors explain what do they mean by "learning scenarios such as the agnostic case" in l421?

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

4

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

NA

Reviewer EqSd7/10 · confidence 2/52024-07-12

Summary

The work contributes to a recent line of work on universal learning rates, i.e. rates with distribution-dependent constants. It characterizes the universal learning rates for the ERM learning rule (specially, the "worst-case" version thereof), showing a partition into four possible optimal universal ERM rates -- which of these rates the "worst-case" ERM follows determined by combinatorial measures on the hypothesis class.

Strengths

Given the ubiquity of ERM, and the looseness of the more classical minimax analyses, the work makes a clear contribution towards the understanding of learning in practice. The work is comprehensive, points out interesting future directions and potential improvements to their theory (e.g. the potential for a simple combinatorial measure separating the $1/n$ and $\log(n)/n$ regimes).

Weaknesses

While the examples of different rates in Section 1.1 are expanded on mathematically in the Appendix, they don't add much as written in the body and could use a bit more intuitive framing. The presentation of section 3 feels a bit pedantic at items.

Questions

What does a `"bad ERM algorithm" (line 135) look like? Random selection from the version space? Do you have any conjectures as to if and where the rates for ``best-case'' ERM differ from the rates presented here?

Rating

7

Confidence

2

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

4

Limitations

Yes

Reviewer q1H27/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-23

Summary

This paper studies the universal rates for ERM learners in the realizable case. While a complete characterization of universal rates for PAC has been studied, it was previously not clear what are the universal rates for the popular ERM learners. This papers presents a tetrachotomy for the ERM learners. In doing so, the authors also develop some new combinatorial complexity measures.

Strengths

This paper presents a tetrachotomy for universal rates of the ERM learners: there are only four possible learning rates, i.e., e^{-n}, 1/n, \log(n)/n, or arbitrarily slow. The authors also provide results for target specified universal rates and introduce some new complexity measures.

Weaknesses

It seems that lot of techniques used in this paper were borrowed from "A Theory of Universal Learning" by Bousquet et al. Can authors highlight what are the main difficulties of proving universal rates for ERM learners (compared to PAC learners), and what are new techniques developed for that? Also, it's not clear to me what is the "worst-case" ERM algorithm (line 101). Can author elaborate on that?

Questions

See above.

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer MghQ2024-08-09

I thank the authors for their explanation.

Reviewer qCB22024-08-10

I thank the authors for their response. I would like to emphasis that my evaluation is an educated guess, I do not know enough about the work [1] to fairly judge the current work.

Reviewer NPxP2024-08-10

Thank you for the response

Thank you for the clarifying points, especially on the reduction to ERM of prior work. I would encourage you to include this discussion in the paper. I maintain my (quite high) score. Great work!

Reviewer EqSd2024-08-10

Thanks for the reply and the pointer to Appendix B.1.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC