Scaling Laws of SignSGD in Linear Regression: When Does It Outperform SGD?

We study optimal learning rate (LR) schedules under the functional scaling law (FSL) framework (Li et al., 2025), which decomposes training dynamics into signal learning and noise forgetting. In power-law kernel regression, these two components are governed by a source exponent $s>0$ and a capacity exponent $q>1$, respectively, with smaller $s$ corresponding to harder tasks. For a fixed training horizon $N$, we characterize the schedules that minimize the final-step loss under a stability constraint and reveal a sharp phase transition. In the easy-task regime $s>1-1/q$, the optimal schedule follows power decay from the beginning of training; in the hard-task regime $s<1-1/q$, it becomes warmup-stable-decay (WSD)-like (Hu et al., 2024), staying at the largest admissible LR for most of training before a final decay. In both regimes, the decay exponent is $2q-1$: task difficulty determines when to decay, while model capacity determines how to decay. Beyond the exact optimum, we study fractional schedules, whose shape is defined over relative training progress. We show that precise tuning of the decay shape is often unnecessary: a broad class of profiles attains the optimal convergence rate, while overly slow terminal decay leads to schedule-induced capacity saturation. Finally, for one-pass SGD in kernel regression, FSL-motivated power-decay schedules achieve optimal last-iterate rates. Experiments support the theoretical predictions and the task-dependent transition between early and delayed decay.

The cooldown phase of a warmup-stable-decay (WSD) learning-rate schedule, now a default in large-model pretraining, lowers the final training loss in some settings and does nothing in others. We give a provable account of which case obtains, and it turns on two properties together: the structure of the gradient noise and whether the optimizer normalizes its update. On a strongly convex objective with multiplicative (gradient-proportional) noise, stochastic gradient descent contracts geometrically at a constant learning rate, so cooldown has nothing to improve. Under the same objective and noise, sign-based and normalized methods, the standard surrogates for adaptive optimizers, settle on a noise floor of order $η^2$ and reach the minimizer only as the learning rate is driven to zero; any additive noise then reinstates a floor for every method. The mechanism is elementary: an SGD step shrinks in proportion to the gradient and so anneals itself, whereas a normalized step keeps unit scale and cannot. We solve the signSGD stationary law on the quadratic exactly and obtain the floor constant in closed form, prove a local form of the dissociation under $(L_0,L_1)$-smoothness, extend the floor to normalized SGD in dimension d>1 by a scale-invariance argument, and establish robustness to momentum and heavy-tailed noise. Simulation confirms every prediction, and we demonstrate the resulting noise-regime diagnostic on a real classification task with directly measured gradient noise. The mechanism explains whether cooldown helps; the interior cooldown fraction used at scale lies outside stationary landscape-and-noise geometry.

Scaling laws provide compact descriptions of how prediction error varies with compute, model size, and data, but existing theory mainly treats single-sample SGD or full data reuse, leaving the role of mini-batching unclear. We study batch scaling laws for sketched linear regression under a power-law covariance spectrum and a source condition on the target parameter. We analyze one-pass batch SGD, multi-pass batch SGD with replacement, and multi-pass batch SGD without replacement. Our first result is a risk decomposition: all three procedures share the same irreducible and approximation terms, while their stochastic terms depend on the sampling protocol. One-pass batch SGD splits into bias and variance, whereas the two multi-pass methods split into GD bias, GD variance, and a fluctuation term around a common GD reference trajectory. We then prove source-condition scaling laws for one-pass and multi-pass mini-batch methods. For one-pass batch SGD, mini-batching preserves the approximation and optimization-bias exponents, while the variance scales as $O(\min(M,(T_{\mathrm{eff}}γ)^{1/a})/(B T_{\mathrm{eff}}))$. Thus the usual $1/B$ covariance reduction holds at fixed update count $T$, but in the one-pass regime $T=N/B$ it is partly offset by the shorter optimization horizon. For multi-pass batch SGD, with- and without-replacement sampling have identical approximation and GD bias/variance terms; they differ only in the fluctuation covariance prefactor, which is $1/B$ with replacement and $ρ_{N,B}=(N-B)/(B(N-1))$ without replacement. Hence without-replacement sampling is less noisy for $B>1$, and when $B=N$ the fluctuation vanishes, recovering deterministic gradient descent. These results place batch size on the same theoretical footing as compute, data, and model dimension in sketched linear regression.