Source-linked AI summary
Dimension-Free Scaling Laws for Size Generalization: An Exponential Separation
Behrooz Tahmasebi, Melanie Weber
TL;DR
Existing transferability work does not characterize the statistical cost of generalizing across input sizes. This paper develops dimension-free scaling laws for size generalization and finds an exponential separation under polynomial source decay, while stronger exponential decay restores polynomial sample complexity.
Problem
Existing transferability guarantees for variable-size sets and graphs do not specify sample-complexity rates or how those rates compare with in-domain learning.
Source: §1 · pp. 1–2Method
The paper develops dimension-free statistical scaling laws for invariant learning and estimation on sets and graphs across input sizes.
Source: §1 · p. 2Results
Under polynomial source decay, in-domain error is n^-Θ(1), whereas size-generalization error is only (log n)^-Θ(1); exponential source decay yields n^-Θ(1) size-generalization error.
Source: §1 · p. 2Takeaways & Limitations
Matching minimax lower bounds for sets and graphs establish that the separation is an inherent statistical limitation of the corresponding source classes.
Source: §1 · p. 2The rates apply only to invariant graph-learning problems satisfying the stated transfer, feature-growth, and source-decay conditions; symmetry alone does not guarantee them for every graph Transformer.
Source: §4.5 · p. 8
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Modern machine learning models increasingly operate on variable-size structured data, such as sets and graphs. A central requirement is \emph{size generalization}: the ability of a model trained on inputs of one size to generalize to inputs of a different, potentially much larger, size. Classical statistical learning theory, however, primarily considers fixed input domains, and its guarantees often deteriorate with input dimension. Although extensive work has established when models on sets and graphs can be transferred across input sizes, such results do not characterize the statistical cost of doing so: the sample complexity of size generalization, and its relationship to classical in-domain learning, remain largely unknown. We develop a statistical learning theory of size generalization and establish a sharp exponential separation in sample complexity. Letting $n$ denote the number of training samples, we show that polynomial source decay is insufficient for efficient size generalization: while it yields error $n^{-\Theta(1)}$ and hence polynomial sample complexity for in-domain learning, size-generalization error decays only as $(\log n)^{-\Theta(1)}$, yielding an exponential separation. Thus, polynomial in-domain sample complexity can become exponential across sizes. We then identify an exponential source condition under which size generalization achieves error $n^{-\Theta(1)}$, recovering polynomial sample complexity. These guarantees are independent of input dimension and depend only on the number of training samples, yielding dimension-free scaling laws. We also provide matching minimax lower bounds, establishing optimality. To our knowledge, this work provides the first dimension-free minimax theory of size generalization and a rigorous characterization of when, and at what statistical cost, learning can transfer across input sizes.
1 INTRODUCTION
The paper studies whether learning at one input size can generalize statistically across sizes, a question not settled by existing transferability guarantees. It establishes dimension-free scaling laws, including an exponential sample-complexity separation under polynomial source decay and polynomial sample complexity under stronger exponential decay.
1 INTRODUCTION
- Existing work studies structural transferability and learning across dimensions, but leaves open dimension-free minimax sample-complexity guarantees across sizes.Prior frameworks include graph limits, graphons, and representation stability.Source: §1 · p. 1
- Variable-size models and transferability guarantees do not determine how statistical error scales with sample count or whether rates hold uniformly across sizes.The paper asks whether n samples at size d can control error at every target size D ≥ d, independently of both sizes.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
- The paper presents Table 1 as a summary of the statistical cost of size generalization.The supplied passage gives the table title but not its cell values.Source: Table 1 · p. 2
- The guarantees depend on the number of training samples, not input size, and the generalization gap converges uniformly over training and target sizes.This is a dimension-free guarantee, unlike transferability errors controlled by the smaller object size.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Under the stronger exponential source condition, size-generalization error improves to n^-Θ(1), recovering polynomial sample complexity.The source condition is stronger than polynomial source decay.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
- Matching minimax lower bounds for sets and graphs show that the polynomial-versus-exponential separation is an inherent statistical limitation, not an algorithm-specific issue.Together with the upper bounds, the results characterize when and at what sample cost learning transfers across sizes.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Under polynomial source decay, in-domain error is n^-Θ(1) but size-generalization error is only (log n)^-Θ(1), creating an exponential sample-complexity separation.The separation is stated for learning across input sizes, compared with in-domain learning under the same condition.Source: §1 · p. 2
2 RELATED WORK
Prior work studies transferability across graph sizes and learning across dimensions, often through stability or structural frameworks. This paper instead characterizes size-uniform statistical rates and their minimax optimality.
Transferability and size generalization
- Graph-limit, graphon, and related approaches primarily characterize approximation, consistency, or stability across sizes, while this work studies statistical convergence rates uniform over test sizes.The cited approaches include Ruiz et al. (2020), Keriven et al. (2020), Levie et al. (2021), Ruiz et al. (2023), Maskey et al. (2023), Cai & Wang (2022), Le & Jegelka (2023), and Herbst & Jegelka (2025).Source: §2 · p. 3
Representation stability and any-dimensional learning
- Representation stability has informed learning under symmetries and across dimensions, but Levin et al. (2025) obtain bounds whose rates depend on dimension-dependent complexity measures.Examples include covering numbers of the domains.Source: §2 · p. 3
- The paper identifies conditions for size-independent convergence rates, characterizes the tradeoff between invariant feature growth and target approximation, and establishes a sharp separation with matching minimax guarantees.The authors describe this as the first such sharp separation with matching minimax optimality guarantees.Source: §2 · p. 3
3 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The paper studies invariant regression and density estimation on variable-size sets and graphs, asking whether learning from one size can yield guarantees at every larger size. Its framework connects targets across sizes through exact, norm-preserving transfer and seeks sample requirements independent of training and deployment sizes.
3 PROBLEM STATEMENT
- Sets and attributed graphs are represented as size-d indexed arrays or tensors, with permutation-invariant Gaussian reference measures and Hilbert spaces for density estimation or regression.The targets are invariant under relabeling; the framework also extends to equivariant vector-valued targets under corresponding transfer, feature-stability, and source conditions.Source: §3 · pp. 3–4
- The statistical setup treats density estimation and supervised regression as empirical-risk problems whose target is the unique population-risk minimizer as an L2 function.Negative log-likelihood identifies the density, while squared loss identifies the conditional mean under the stated finite-moment condition.Source: §3 · pp. 3–4
Appendix B.1 provides the formal background.
- Exact transfer abstracts shared rules across sizes: it reuses the same pattern weights, preserving prediction error while relating only the size-stable subspace, not arbitrary functions.The construction is compatible with shared-rule approaches such as Deep Sets and GNNs.Source: Appendix B.1 · p. 4
- Dimension-free size generalization asks for one estimator trained at size d to remain accurate simultaneously at every target size D ≥ d, with sample complexity independent of both sizes.The transferred target is assumed to be the same size-consistent rule, with coherent transfer maps preserving norms and introducing no approximation mismatch.Source: Appendix B.1 · pp. 4–5
4 MAIN RESULTS
The results combine stable counts of invariant polynomial features with target source decay to characterize learning rates uniformly across object sizes. Polynomial decay leads to logarithmic size-generalization rates and an exponential sample-complexity separation, while sufficiently fast exponential decay can restore power-law rates; matching minimax bounds establish optimality.
4.1 INVARIANT POLYNOMIAL COORDINATES AND REPRESENTATION STABILITY
- Representation stability makes invariant polynomial feature counts uniform over object size, while graph interaction counts grow substantially faster with degree than set counts.For fixed degree, the invariant-space dimensions stabilize as size grows; the graph feature count has first-order asymptotics exp(k log k + O_r(k log log k)).Source: §4.1 · p. 5
4.2 POLYNOMIAL AND EXPONENTIAL SOURCE DECAY
- Polynomial source decay bounds the high-degree interaction tail by B(k) ≲ k^-τ, whereas exponential source decay bounds it by B(k) ≲ exp(-a k^ν) and imposes stronger regularity.The exponent ν determines whether decay is fast enough to overcome growth in invariant interactions.Source: §4.2 · p. 6
4.3 DIMENSION-FREE SCALING LAWS
- Theorem 4.1 gives squared-error rates for estimators trained only at size d that hold simultaneously for every D ≥ d, independently of d and D.Representation stability and target regularity combine to produce a phase transition between nearly parametric and logarithmic size generalization.Source: §4 · p. 5, §4.3 · p. 7
4.4 WHY CLASSICAL IN-DOMAIN POWER LAWS CHANGE
- The minimax bounds match the upper rates under the stated local-richness condition, so no estimator uniformly improves the rates for the corresponding source classes.The lower bounds apply to regression and density estimation and already hold at a suitable stable training size.Source: §4.4 · pp. 7–8
4.5 DISCUSSION
- Exact transfer removes cross-size approximation mismatch, but polynomial source decay alone cannot guarantee a power-law rate uniformly over its class.The discussion does not claim that every individual task in that class is hard; faster rates require additional structure such as faster source decay or fewer transferable interactions.Source: §4.5 · p. 8
4 MAIN RESULTS
- Under polynomial source decay, size-generalization error is only (log n)^-Θ(1), versus n^-Θ(1) in-domain, yielding an exponential sample-complexity separation.The paper gives dimension-free rates and matching minimax lower bounds for sets and graphs.Source: §5 · p. 9
5 CONCLUSION
- The conclusion attributes the rate transition to the interaction between transferable invariant-representation growth and the target's high-order structure, rather than to estimator or analysis artifacts.Fast enough exponential source decay overcomes invariant feature growth and recovers nearly parametric size generalization.Source: §5 · p. 9, §4.5 · p. 9
A ADDITIONAL RELATED WORK
- The paper's scope is invariant estimation across changing dimensions with explicit size-uniform rates, complementing prior work on transferability, architectures, and symmetry-based learning.The theory is stated at the function-class level, not for a particular neural parameterization.Source: §4.5 · p. 8, A ADDITIONAL RELATED WORK · p. 15, B FUNCTION-LEVEL SYMMETRY, STATISTICAL… · p. 15
B.1 GROUP ACTIONS ON DATA AND FUNCTIONS
The framework uses group actions to formalize invariance of data laws, targets, and learning objectives. It then defines exact functional transfer across sizes and uses stable invariant polynomial spaces to support dimension-uniform learning-rate analysis.
B.1 GROUP ACTIONS ON DATA AND FUNCTIONS
- A group action on data induces a pullback action on functions, and a function is invariant when relabeling its input leaves its value unchanged.For sets and graphs of size d, the acting group is the symmetric group S_d.Source: §B.1 · p. 16
- When the joint data-label law is invariant, the regression target has an invariant version; invariant density targets follow when the reference measure is invariant.Invariant risk minimization can produce an invariant minimizer by group averaging under the stated convexity conditions.Source: §B.1 · p. 16
B.2 EXAMPLES OF STATISTICAL LEARNING OBJECTIVES
- The unified observation and risk notation covers unsupervised density estimation and supervised regression, with extensions to proper losses and equivariant score or denoising targets under matching stability and source conditions.For the scalar cases, the empirical risk estimates the population risk from observations that are either inputs alone or input-label pairs.Source: §B.2 · pp. 16–17
B.3 EXACT FUNCTIONAL TRANSFER ACROSS SIZES
- Exact transfer maps invariant functions between sizes coherently and isometrically while preserving target compatibility, so the learned rule and its error transfer without mismatch.It identifies a size-stable subspace rather than necessarily covering every function at the larger size.Source: §B.3 · p. 17
B.4 INVARIANT POLYNOMIAL FUNCTION SPACES
- Invariant polynomial spaces provide transfer-compatible coordinates, and representation stability means their dimensions stabilize as size grows.That stabilization is the algebraic mechanism behind dimension-uniform learning in this setting.Source: §B.3 · p. 17, §B.4 · p. 18
B.5 SET-VALUED DATA AND MULTISYMMETRIC POLYNOMIALS
The section counts invariant polynomial features for sets by representing them as vectors and identifying polynomials unchanged by element permutations. For fixed element dimension and degree, this invariant-space dimension stabilizes as set size grows.
B.5 SET-VALUED DATA AND MULTISYMMETRIC POLYNOMIALS
- Permuting the d set elements makes invariant monomial orbits correspond to multisets of nonzero block multi-indices.These invariant polynomials are called multisymmetric polynomials.Source: §B.5 · p. 18
- When d ≥ k, every degree-k invariant monomial orbit can be realized using at most k nonzero blocks, so the dimension no longer depends on d.The stable dimension is counted by the number of multisets of nonzero multi-indices with total degree k.Source: §B.5 · p. 19
- For fixed r, the stable invariant-space dimension grows subexponentially with degree k.When r = 1, the count reduces to the ordinary partition number.Source: §B.5 · p. 19
- For fixed element dimension r and degree k, the dimension of invariant polynomial functions stabilizes as set size d grows.The full homogeneous polynomial space, in contrast, grows polynomially in d for fixed k.Source: §B.5 · p. 19
B.6 HERMITE FEATURES FOR SET-VALUED DATA
Invariant Hermite features provide a Gaussian-orthonormal basis for set-valued data, with dimensions matching those of multisymmetric polynomials. Truncating this hierarchy yields size-independent finite-dimensional classes and controlled approximation error when coefficient tails are bounded.
B.6 HERMITE FEATURES FOR SET-VALUED DATA
- Symmetrizing Hermite features over element permutations gives invariant features with the same degree-k dimension count as multisymmetric polynomials.The features are based on Hermite polynomials orthonormal under a Gaussian reference measure.Source: §B.6 · pp. 19–20
- Once d ≥ k, truncation at degree k gives an invariant function class whose dimension is independent of set size d.For density estimation, the admissible class also requires nonnegativity and unit integral.Source: §B.6 · p. 20
- Gradients of invariant scalar features are equivariant vector fields.Source: §B.6 · p. 20
- A controlled coefficient tail ensures that truncating to m invariant Hermite functions incurs squared L2 approximation error at most b^2 m.This is an instance of the approximation tail B(k) in Theorem 4.1.Source: §B.6 · p. 20
B.7 ATTRIBUTED GRAPHS
The merged sections show how invariant feature spaces and exact transfers support dimension-free size-generalization bounds for sets and graphs. The guarantees apply to size-consistent tasks, and their rates depend on representation growth and source regularity rather than object size.
B.7 ATTRIBUTED GRAPHS
- Attributed-graph invariant spaces stabilize with node count, while their degree-k dimensions grow as exp(k log k + O(k log log k)), faster than for set-valued data.Their monomial orbits are indexed by unlabeled channel-attributed directed multigraph patterns.Source: §B.7 · pp. 20–21
C CONCRETE EXACT TRANSFERS FOR SETS AND GRAPHS
- Exact transfer instantiates the same invariant rule at a new size; the stable feature constructions provide the required linear isometry after normalization.The assumption does not match arbitrary functions across dimensions.Source: C CONCRETE EXACT TRANSFERS FOR SETS… · p. 21
C.1 SETS
- For sets, paired invariant features give an isometric transfer, while replication preserves the empirical measure and hence empirical-measure-based rules.Density expansions additionally must remain nonnegative and integrate to one.Source: §C.1 · p. 22
C.2 ATTRIBUTED GRAPHS
- For graphs, blow-ups preserve normalized motif rules, and shared message-passing GNN rules transfer exactly when the target family uses the same rule.Stable graph-feature expansions are isometric after orthonormalization and their degree-k truncations stabilize once d ≥ 2k.Source: §C.2 · pp. 22–23
C.3 WHAT THE EXACT-TRANSFER ASSUMPTION ASSERTS
- Exact transfer is limited to size-consistent task families that share the semantic rule across training and target sizes; arbitrary set or graph tasks need not be related.The isometry condition keeps the scale of estimation error unchanged under this identification.Source: §C.3 · p. 23
D PROOF OF THEOREM 4.1
- The proof first transfers a fixed-size estimation guarantee to every larger size, then balances representation growth against the source tail.The finite-dimensional bound follows from the stated loss regularity conditions.Source: D PROOF OF THEOREM 4.1 · p. 23
D.1 FINITE-DIMENSIONAL ESTIMATION AND TRANSFER
- No union bound over target sizes is needed: exact transfer makes all target-size errors equal to the training-size error, yielding a size-free oracle inequality.The bound depends on interaction order, representation growth, and target regularity, not object sizes d and D.Source: §D.1 · p. 24
D.2 SET RATES
- Under polynomial source decay for sets, balancing the oracle-inequality terms gives k_n = (log n/C_r)^(1/β)(1 + o(1)).The section reports fast, critical, and subcritical rate regimes.Source: §D.2 · p. 24
D.3 GRAPH RATES
Graph representation growth sets the rate regime under polynomial source decay, while the lower-bound argument uses statistically distinguishable invariant perturbations. Under its nondegeneracy condition, the minimax lower bound is tied to the quantity controlled by the upper oracle inequality.
D.3 GRAPH RATES
- For graph representations, log qgraph(k) = k log k + O_r(k log log k) = k log k (1 + o(1)); r affects only the lower-order remainder, not first-order rates.Source: §D.3 · p. 24
- With polynomial source decay, the graph interaction order crosses at k_n = (log n/log log n)(1 + o(1)).Source: §D.3 · p. 24
E PROOF OF THEOREM 4.2
- The lower-bound theorem assumes counted invariant coordinates correspond to statistically distinguishable local perturbations.This nondegeneracy condition prevents the loss or data distribution from collapsing nominally different invariant directions.Source: E PROOF OF THEOREM 4.2 · p. 25
E.2 ASSOUAD LOWER BOUND
- The size-generalization risk includes training size, so its supremum is at least the in-domain loss; the resulting lower-bound quantity is controlled by the upper oracle inequality.The argument uses an Assouad lower bound under the stated nondegeneracy condition.Source: §E.2 · p. 25
E.3 EVALUATION OF THE LOWER BOUND
The lower-bound evaluation matches the upper-bound rates, while the auxiliary estimation argument derives a finite-dimensional bound from curvature and score concentration. The stated curvature conditions are primitive assumptions rather than assumed statistical rates.
E.3 EVALUATION OF THE LOWER BOUND
- For exponential source decay, the crossing equations recover three set regimes from equation D.7 and two graph regimes from equation D.11.The polynomial-decay evaluation refers to set and graph representation asymptotics, but its displayed rates are not recoverable from these passages.Source: §E.3 · p. 26
- The lower bounds match Appendix D’s upper bounds up to constants and lower-order factors, for regression and density estimation at a stable training size.They rule out uniformly improving any set or graph rate in Table 2.Source: §E.3 · p. 26
F AUXILIARY FINITE-DIMENSIONAL ESTIMATION BOUND
- The finite-dimensional estimation argument reduces error to the empirical gradient at the population best fit, using empirical optimality and strong convexity rather than an assumed statistical rate.The best fit is within the finite model and need not equal the unrestricted target.Source: F AUXILIARY FINITE-DIMENSIONAL… · p. 26, §F.1 · p. 26
F.1 RESTRICTED GRADIENTS ON THE INVARIANT MODEL
- Restricted curvature and score concentration yield the finite-dimensional estimation bound with probability at least 1 − δ and an absolute constant.For squared loss, sub-Gaussian whitened features suffice for curvature once n ≳ p_G + log(1/δ); regular likelihoods or smooth proper losses can use a uniformly positive population Hessian and concentration.Source: §F.1 · pp. 26–27
F.2 PROOF OF THE ESTIMATION BOUND
Strong convexity and concentration control estimation within a finite model, and the transfer argument combines that estimate with approximation error. For set-equivariant fields, polynomial source decay gives logarithmic error, while exponential decay supports polynomial error rates.
F.2 PROOF OF THE ESTIMATION BOUND
- On the restricted-curvature and score-concentration events, strong convexity and empirical optimality bound estimation error around the population best fit in the finite model.The resulting bound is stated with probability at least 1 − δ; orthonormal coordinates equate parameter and function-space distances, and an approximation bound yields equation D.1.Source: §F.2 · pp. 27–28
F.3 PROOF OF THE TRANSFER BOUND
- The auxiliary transfer calculation combines the estimation bound with an approximation identity to obtain the transfer bound.The supplied passage states completion of this calculation without giving its displayed formula.Source: §F.3 · p. 28
G EQUIVARIANT FIELD SPECIALIZATION FOR SETS
- For set-equivariant fields, polynomial coefficient decay B_d(k) ≲ k^−τ gives error (log n)^−τ(r+1)/r, while uniform exponential decay gives polynomial error in n.The scalar proof applies to score matching and denoising after replacing invariant scalar functions with permutation-equivariant vector fields.Source: G EQUIVARIANT FIELD SPECIALIZATION FOR… · pp. 28–29
- Isometric equivariant transfer makes the set-field bounds hold simultaneously at every target size D ≥ d.Source: G EQUIVARIANT FIELD SPECIALIZATION FOR… · p. 29
H EQUIVARIANT FIELD SPECIALIZATION FOR GRAPHS
For graph-equivariant fields, feature-space growth and source decay determine the size-generalization rates. Isometric transfer makes the bounds simultaneous across target sizes, and channel dimension affects only a lower-order term.
H EQUIVARIANT FIELD SPECIALIZATION FOR GRAPHS
- The graph specialization uses degree-at-most-k equivariant features and their stable dimension to obtain its bounds.The supplied passages identify graph feature-space growth as exp(k log k + O_r(k log log k)).Source: H EQUIVARIANT FIELD SPECIALIZATION FOR… · p. 29
- With fixed channel dimension r, polynomial graph coefficient decay B^graph_d(k) ≲ k^−τ gives size-generalization error (log n / log log n)^−τ.Source: H EQUIVARIANT FIELD SPECIALIZATION FOR… · p. 29
- The channel dimension affects only the lower-order term in graph feature-space growth, so it does not enter the first-order rates.Isometric equivariant transfer makes every bound simultaneous over D ≥ d.Source: H EQUIVARIANT FIELD SPECIALIZATION FOR… · p. 29
I EXPERIMENTS
The experiments illustrate two distinct transfer mechanisms: stable invariant representations and exact equivariant transfer with truncation error governed by coefficient decay. They are mechanism-focused demonstrations, not broad benchmarks or tests of asymptotic minimax rates.
I EXPERIMENTS
- The experiments isolate representation-induced transfer error from approximation error due to the source tail, rather than benchmarking a broad set of architectures.Source: I EXPERIMENTS · p. 29
I.1 SUBGRAPH COUNTING
- The invariant polynomial model transfers directly and improves with test graph size, while the favorably subgraph-averaged raw model remains consistently worse.Normalized invariant moments retain stable meaning across sizes and become more accurate estimates of population quantities as larger graphs provide more nodes.Source: §I.1 · pp. 29–30
I.2 EQUIVARIANT FIELD TRANSFER ON WEIGHTED GRAPHS
- The experiment fits coefficients by least squares on off-diagonal field entries from 200 independently sampled graphs with d = 10, then tests transfer on 16 independent graphs at each D ∈ {10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80}.At target sizes, no parameters are refit or calibrated; transfer reuses learned coefficients and evaluates analytically normalized features.Source: §I.2 · p. 31
- In the weighted-graph example, the learned rule remains stable across tested sizes, while slow coefficient decay leaves truncation error roughly two to three orders of magnitude larger than fast decay.Normalization controls size mismatch, whereas coefficient decay determines how much signal remains beyond the fitted degree; the experiment does not test asymptotic minimax rates.Source: §I.2 · p. 31, Figure 1 · p. 31