Is Stochastic Gradient Descent Near Optimal?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The success of neural networks over the past decade has established them as effective models for many relevant data generating processes. Statistical theory on neural networks indicates graceful scaling of sample complexity. For example, Joen & Van Roy (arXiv:2203.00246) demonstrate that, when data is generated by a ReLU teacher network with W parameters, an optimal learner needs only tildeO(W/ε) samples to attain expected error ε. However, existing computational theory suggests that, even for single-hidden-layer teacher networks, to attain small error for all such teacher networks, the computation required to achieve this sample complexity is intractable. In this work, we fit single-hidden-layer neural networks to data generated by single-hidden-layer ReLU teacher networks with parameters drawn from a natural distribution. We demonstrate that stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with automated width selection attains small expected error with a number of samples and total number of queries both nearly linear in the input dimension and width. This suggests that SGD nearly achieves the information-theoretic sample complexity bounds of Joen & Van Roy (arXiv:2203.00246) in a computationally efficient manner. An important difference between our positive empirical results and the negative theoretical results is that the latter address worst-case error of deterministic algorithms, while our analysis centers on expected error of a stochastic algorithm.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Sep 2022.
Builds on
21 of 28 references.
References · 21
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2013Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 3,274
- 2016On Large-Batch Training for Deep Learning: Generalization Gap and Sharp Minimacited by 1,352
- 2015Cyclical Learning Rates for Training Neural Networkscited by 629
- 2017Nearly-tight VC-dimension and pseudodimension bounds for piecewise linear neural networkscited by 311
- 2018Towards Understanding the Role of Over-Parametrization in Generalization of Neural Networkscited by 142
- 2017Recovery Guarantees for One-hidden-layer Neural Networkscited by 94
- 2017Learning One-hidden-layer Neural Networks with Landscape Designcited by 81
- 2015The Optimal Sample Complexity of PAC Learningcited by 72
9 more
- 2014On the Computational Efficiency of Training Neural Networkscited by 71
- 2020Superpolynomial Lower Bounds for Learning One-Layer Neural Networks using Gradient Descentcited by 58
- 2020Algorithms and SQ Lower Bounds for PAC Learning One-Hidden-Layer ReLU Networkscited by 49
- 2018Guaranteed Recovery of One-Hidden-Layer Neural Networks via Cross Entropycited by 22
- 2017On the Complexity of Learning Neural Networkscited by 18
- 2015ℓ1-regularized Neural Networks are Improperly Learnable in Polynomial Timecited by 16
- 2013Provable Bounds for Learning Some Deep Representationscited by 14
- 2022An Information-Theoretic Framework for Supervised Learningcited by 6
- 2015Beating the Perils of Non-Convexity: Guaranteed Training of Neural Networks using Tensor Methodscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 1.
2 papers.