cs.LGMay 23, 2026

From One-Pass SGD to Data Reuse: Mini-Batch Scaling Laws in Sketched Linear Regression

Authors: Ziyan Chen, Zhongzhu Zhou, Ding-Xuan Zhou

Organizations: The University of Sydney · Together AI

Abstract

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,(Teffγ)1/a)/(BTeff))O(\min(M,(T_{\mathrm{eff}}γ)^{1/a})/(B T_{\mathrm{eff}})). Thus the usual 1/B1/B covariance reduction holds at fixed update count TT, but in the one-pass regime T=N/BT=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/B1/B with replacement and ρN,B=(N−B)/(B(N−1))ρ_{N,B}=(N-B)/(B(N-1)) without replacement. Hence without-replacement sampling is less noisy for B>1B>1, and when B=NB=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.

Explore similar work

Mar 2, 2026cs.LG

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

We study scaling laws of signSGD under a power-law random features (PLRF) model that accounts for both feature and target decay. We analyze the population risk of a linear model trained with one-pass signSGD on Gaussian-sketched features. We express the risk as a function of model size, training steps, learning rate, and the feature and target decay parameters. Comparing against the SGD risk analyzed by Paquette et al. (2024), we identify a drift-normalization effect and a noise-reshaping effect unique to signSGD. We then obtain compute-optimal scaling laws under the optimal choice of learning rate. Our analysis shows that the noise-reshaping effect can make the compute-optimal slope of signSGD steeper than that of SGD in regimes where noise is dominant. Finally, we observe that the widely used warmup-stable-decay (WSD) schedule further reduces the noise term and sharpens the compute-optimal slope, when feature decay is fast but target decay is slow.
Jihwan Kim, Dogyoon Song, Chulhee Yun
Jun 25, 2026cs.LG

Sketched Linear Contrastive Learning: Approximation, Optimization, and Statistical Scaling

Scaling laws describe how learning performance varies with model size, data size, and compute. While recent theoretical work has established scaling laws for sketched linear regression, much less is understood for contrastive representation learning. In this paper, we study a sketched linear model for contrastive learning under a paired Gaussian latent-variable setup. The learner observes only sketched views of two correlated variables and trains a bilinear contrastive score by full-batch empirical gradient descent. We analyze a Gaussian-negative quadratic contrastive surrogate under aligned power-law spectra and a contrastive source condition, where we derive a risk decomposition into irreducible risk, approximation error, GD bias, GD variance, and a cross term. The cross term is controlled by the bias and variance and therefore does not affect the upper-bound scaling. Our main theorem gives an explicit scaling law with respect to sketch dimension MM, sample size NN, and effective optimization horizon LeffγL_{\mathrm{eff}}γ. Compared with standard linear-regression scaling laws, the contrastive setting must learn interactions between two views, and this changes how optimization and finite-sample noise scale with model size, data, and training time. This provides a first theoretical step toward understanding scaling behavior in contrastive learning and gives guidance for balancing model size, data, and optimization compute.
Ziyan Chen, Zhongzhu Zhou, Ding-Xuan Zhou
Sep 10, 2026stat.ML

Learning with Synthetic Data via SGD in High-Dimensional Linear Regression

Synthetic data has become a promising way to scale model training beyond limited human-generated data but it may also induce strong model collapse (Dohmatob et al., 2024), where any fixed fraction of synthetic data prevents model performance from improving under data scaling, leaving a non-vanishing excess risk floor. In this paper, we study how synthetic data affects the generalization of one-pass SGD in high-dimensional linear regression with model shift. We establish finite-sample risk bounds for mixed and two-stage training, separating standard bias and variance from source-mismatch effects, namely fluctuation and persistent drift under mixing and filtered initialization bias under two-stage. These bounds reveal a sharp contrast: mixed training induces strong model collapse, while two-stage training avoids the floor by using synthetic data only in the first stage, showing that collapse is not inevitable under a simple data curriculum. Under a random sketch model, we further obtain scaling laws for both protocols, with tight results for mixed training in the optimization-saturated regime. These laws show that larger models may amplify synthetic-induced degradation under mixing, and quantify how high-quality synthetic pretraining may reduce bias in two-stage training. Finally, we establish an exact finite-sample necessary-and-sufficient condition for two-stage training to strictly outperform real-only training under the same real-data budget and identical real-stage updates. Overall, our results highlight that synthetic data is neither inherently harmful nor beneficial; its effect depends critically on both its quality and the training protocol used to incorporate it.
Jichu li, Difan Zou