Fundamental Limits of Ridge-Regularized Empirical Risk Minimization in High Dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) algorithms are widely used in a variety of estimation and prediction tasks in signal-processing and machine learning applications. Despite their popularity, a theory that explains their statistical properties in modern regimes where both the number of measurements and the number of unknown parameters is large is only recently emerging. In this paper, we characterize for the first time the fundamental limits on the statistical accuracy of convex ERM for inference in high-dimensional generalized linear models. For a stylized setting with Gaussian features and problem dimensions that grow large at a proportional rate, we start with sharp performance characterizations and then derive tight lower bounds on the estimation and prediction error that hold over a wide class of loss functions and for any value of the regularization parameter. Our precise analysis has several attributes. First, it leads to a recipe for optimally tuning the loss function and the regularization parameter. Second, it allows to precisely quantify the sub-optimality of popular heuristic choices: for instance, we show that optimally-tuned least-squares is (perhaps surprisingly) approximately optimal for standard logistic data, but the sub-optimality gap grows drastically as the signal strength increases. Third, we use the bounds to precisely assess the merits of ridge-regularization as a function of the over-parameterization ratio. Notably, our bounds are expressed in terms of the Fisher Information of random variables that are simple functions of the data distribution, thus making ties to corresponding bounds in classical statistics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".