A Regularization-Sharpness Tradeoff for Linear Interpolators
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rule of thumb regarding the relationship between the bias-variance tradeoff and model size plays a key role in classical machine learning, but is now well-known to break down in the overparameterized setting as per the double descent curve. In particular, minimum-norm interpolating estimators can perform well, suggesting the need for new tradeoff in these settings. Accordingly, we propose a regularization-sharpness tradeoff for overparameterized linear regression with an ℓp penalty. Inspired by the interpolating information criterion, our framework decomposes the selection penalty into a regularization term (quantifying the alignment of the regularizer and the interpolator) and a geometric sharpness term on the interpolating manifold (quantifying the effect of local perturbations), yielding a tradeoff analogous to bias-variance. Building on prior analyses that established this information criterion for ridge regularizers, this work first provides a general expression of the interpolating information criterion for ℓp regularizers where p ≥ 2. Subsequently, we extend this to the LASSO interpolator with ℓ1 regularizer, which induces stronger sparsity. Empirical results on real-world datasets with random Fourier features and polynomials validate our theory, demonstrating how the tradeoff terms can distinguish performant linear interpolators from weaker ones.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Feb 2026.
Builds on
22 of 46 references.
References · 22
- 2016On Large-Batch Training for Deep Learning: Generalization Gap and Sharp Minimacited by 1,352
- 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 927
- 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 672
- 2017Exploring Generalization in Deep Learningcited by 600
- 2019Benign Overfitting in Linear Regressioncited by 549
- 2017Computing Nonvacuous Generalization Bounds for Deep (Stochastic) Neural Networks with Many More Parameters than Training Datacited by 533
- 2019Surprises in High-Dimensional Ridgeless Least Squares Interpolationcited by 513
- 2019Fantastic Generalization Measures and Where to Find Themcited by 513
- 2017Sharp Minima Can Generalize For Deep Netscited by 466
- 2019The generalization error of random features regression: Precise asymptotics and double descent curvecited by 413
- 2017Implicit Regularization in Matrix Factorizationcited by 322
- 2017Deep Learning is Robust to Massive Label Noisecited by 165
10 more
- 2020Benign overfitting in ridge regressioncited by 153
- 2015Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAICcited by 110
- 2016PAC-Bayesian Theory Meets Bayesian Inferencecited by 88
- 2020On the Similarity between the Laplace and Neural Tangent Kernelscited by 76
- 2022Bayesian Model Selection, the Marginal Likelihood, and Generalizationcited by 57
- 2020Deep Learning is Singular, and That's Goodcited by 49
- 2020Multiple Descent: Design Your Own Generalization Curvecited by 45
- 2023Double Descent Demystified: Identifying, Interpreting & Ablating the Sources of a Deep Learning Puzzlecited by 37
- 2023The Interpolating Information Criterion for Overparameterized Modelscited by 12
- 2023A PAC-Bayesian Perspective on the Interpolating Information Criterioncited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.