Paper:
Early stopping for kernel boosting algorithms: A general analysis with localized complexities
Early stopping of iterative algorithms is a widely-used form of regularization in statistics, commonly used in conjunction with boosting and related gradienttype algorithms. Although consistency results have been established in some settings, such estimators are less well-understood than their analogues based on penalized regularization. In this paper, for a relatively broad class of loss functions and boosting algorithms (including L 2 -boost, LogitBoost and AdaBoost, among others), we exhibit a direct connection between the performance of a stopped iterate and the localized Gaussian complexity of the associated function class. This connection allows us to show that local fixed point analysis of Gaussian or Rademacher complexities, now standard in the analysis of penalized estimators, can be used to derive optimal stopping rules. We derive such stopping rules in detail for various kernel classes, and illustrate the correspondence of our theory with practice for Sobolev kernel classes.

Review:
The paper establishes minimax optimal rates of estimation for early stopping of kernel boosting, where the stopping index is expressed in terms of localized Rademacher/Gaussian complexities.
Overall, this paper is well written and closes a gap in the literature: while lower bounds in terms of localized complexity measures are known, a similar result for the choice of the nb. of iterations (and therefore upper bounds) was unknown. 
Some comments:
***Remark after Th. 1 about random design setting should be more explained (at least for the not initiated reader); applies (11b) to squared population L^2-norm with f^T or \bar f^T ?
***l. 188: I think Yang et al. [30] state a lower bound involving the critical radius delta_n defined as the smallest positive solution such that R(delta)<=delta^2/sigma ,
with R(delta) given in (6) (rather than the worst-case constant sup delta^2_n; or are these two numbers equivalent ?).
***l.223/224: could you provide a reference?
***a possible weak spot: numerical experiments are provided only for the error involving f^T in distinction to Th. 1. The authors remark in l.282/283 that a rigorous proof is missing
(on the other hand, based on this simulations one can indeed strongly suspect that the same result holds for f^T as well)
A few very minor remarks about typesetting:
*** l. 155 ff. --> the function class {\mathcal E} and also delta depend on n, which could be indicated for better understanding; same for the effective noise level sigma for least squares
*** l.158: "Gaussian complexity ... at scale sigma"-->should be "delta"