HackerPapers

arXiv:2006.10732stat.ML

When Does Preconditioning Help or Hurt Generalization?

Shun-ichi Amari, Jimmy Ba, Roger Grosse, Xuechen Li, Atsushi Nitanda, Taiji Suzuki, Denny Wu, Ji Xu

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

While second order optimizers such as natural gradient descent (NGD) often speed up optimization, their effect on generalization has been called into question. This work presents a more nuanced view on how the \textit{implicit bias} of first- and second-order methods affects the comparison of generalization properties. We provide an exact asymptotic bias-variance decomposition of the generalization error of overparameterized ridgeless regression under a general class of preconditioner $\boldsymbol{P}$, and consider the inverse population Fisher information matrix (used in NGD) as a particular example. We determine the optimal $\boldsymbol{P}$ for both the bias and variance, and find that the relative generalization performance of different optimizers depends on the label noise and the "shape" of the signal (true parameters): when the labels are noisy, the model is misspecified, or the signal is misaligned with the features, NGD can achieve lower risk; conversely, GD generalizes better than NGD under clean labels, a well-specified model, or aligned signal. Based on this analysis, we discuss several approaches to manage the bias-variance tradeoff, and the potential benefit of interpolating between GD and NGD. We then extend our analysis to regression in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space and demonstrate that preconditioned GD can decrease the population risk faster than GD. Lastly, we empirically compare the generalization error of first- and second-order optimizers in neural network experiments, and observe robust trends matching our theoretical analysis.

arXiv comments
42 pages
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
stat.MLMachine Learning (Statistics) cs.LGMachine Learning

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Mar 2026 to Mar 2026.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • That still looks like a “converge faster” paper. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10732 The above provides a nuanced theoretical view. GD inductive bias is probably better unless your model is misspecified

      vladfView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.