# Asymptotic learning curves of kernel methods: empirical data v.s. Teacher-Student paradigm

## TL;DR

This paper investigates the rate at which kernel methods learn from data, combining empirical measurements on datasets like MNIST and CIFAR10 with theoretical analysis using a Teacher-Student model to explain the observed learning curves.

## Contribution

It provides a theoretical framework linking the decay of eigenfunction coefficients to learning rates and validates predictions with empirical data, revealing the role of data structure and kernel properties.

## Key findings

- Empirical exponents: ~0.4 for MNIST, ~0.1 for CIFAR10.
- Theoretical exponents match empirical data when considering data smoothness and dimension.
- Small effective data dimension explains large learning exponents.

## Abstract

How many training data are needed to learn a supervised task? It is often observed that the generalization error decreases as $n^{-\beta}$ where $n$ is the number of training examples and $\beta$ an exponent that depends on both data and algorithm. In this work we measure $\beta$ when applying kernel methods to real datasets. For MNIST we find $\beta\approx 0.4$ and for CIFAR10 $\beta\approx 0.1$, for both regression and classification tasks, and for Gaussian or Laplace kernels. To rationalize the existence of non-trivial exponents that can be independent of the specific kernel used, we study the Teacher-Student framework for kernels. In this scheme, a Teacher generates data according to a Gaussian random field, and a Student learns them via kernel regression. With a simplifying assumption -- namely that the data are sampled from a regular lattice -- we derive analytically $\beta$ for translation invariant kernels, using previous results from the kriging literature. Provided that the Student is not too sensitive to high frequencies, $\beta$ depends only on the smoothness and dimension of the training data. We confirm numerically that these predictions hold when the training points are sampled at random on a hypersphere. Overall, the test error is found to be controlled by the magnitude of the projection of the true function on the kernel eigenvectors whose rank is larger than $n$. Using this idea we predict relate the exponent $\beta$ to an exponent $a$ describing how the coefficients of the true function in the eigenbasis of the kernel decay with rank. We extract $a$ from real data by performing kernel PCA, leading to $\beta\approx0.36$ for MNIST and $\beta\approx0.07$ for CIFAR10, in good agreement with observations. We argue that these rather large exponents are possible due to the small effective dimension of the data.