Paper:
There is a stark disparity between the learning rate schedules used in the practice of large scale machine learning and what are considered admissible learning rate schedules prescribed in the theory of stochastic approximation. Recent results, such as in the 'super-convergence' methods which use oscillating learning rates, serve to emphasize this point even more. One plausible explanation is that non-convex neural network training procedures are better suited to the use of fundamentally different learning rate schedules, such as the "cut the learning rate every constant number of epochs" method (which more closely resembles an exponentially decaying learning rate schedule); note that this widely used schedule is in stark contrast to the polynomial decay schemes prescribed in the stochastic approximation literature, which are indeed shown to be (worst case) optimal for classes of convex optimization problems. The main contribution of this work shows that the picture is far more nuanced, where we do not even need to move to non-convex optimization to show other learning rate schemes can be far more effective. In fact, even for the simple case of stochastic linear regression with a fixed time horizon, the rate achieved by any polynomial decay scheme is suboptimal compared to the statistical minimax rate (by a factor of condition number); in contrast the "cut the learning rate every constant number of epochs" provides an exponential improvement (depending only logarithmically on the condition number) compared to any polynomial decay scheme. Finally, it is important to ask if our theoretical insights are somehow fundamentally tied to quadratic loss minimization (where we have circumvented minimax lower bounds for more general convex optimization problems)? Here, we conjecture that recent results which make the gradient norm small at a near optimal rate, for both convex and non-convex optimization, may also provide more insights into learning rate schedules used in practice.

Review:
The paper studies the effect of learning-rate choices for stochastic optimization, focusing on least-mean-squares with decaying stepsizes. The main result is showing that exponentially decaying stepsizes can yield improved rates of convergence of the final iterate in terms of dependence on the condition number. The proposed learning rate schedule depends on the condition number and the number of iterations. This positive result is complemented by showing that without prior knowledge of the time horizon, any stepsize sequence will frequently yield suboptimal solutions.
I have mixed feelings about the paper. On the positive side, the particular observation that exponential learning-rate schedules lead to faster convergence for SGD in linear least-squares problems indeed seems to be a novel result, and the lower bound also appears to be new and interesting. The analysis seems to be technically correct as well. 
On the other hand, I have several concerns about the presentation of the results:
- The abstract and the introduction sets up a misleading narrative around the results: the authors seem to suggest that their work somehow explains why certain learning-rate schedules work better than others for deep learning applications / non-convex optimization, although the actual results exclusively concern the classical problem of linear least-squares regression. This presentation is completely uncalled for as the authors themselves admit that it is unclear how the results would generalize to other convex optimization settings, let alone non-convex optimization. Also, I think that this presentation style is rather harmful as it suggests that learning-theory results concerning classical setups are somehow embarrassing, so they need to be sold through some made-up connections to trendy topics in deep learning. I would suggest that the authors completely "rethink" the presentation of the paper and write it in a style that is consistent with the actual results: as a learning theory paper, without the irrelevant deep learning experiments (that only show well-known phenomena anyway).
- The paper misrepresents a large body of work on stochastic/online optimization. Specifically, the authors suggest that the stochastic optimization literature exclusively suggests the use of polynomially decaying stepsizes. This picture is grossly inaccurate for multiple reasons:
*** It has been known for a while that the de facto optimal tuning of SGD for least squares involves a large constant stepsize and iterate averaging (see, e.g., Bach and Moulines, NIPS 2013). This approach is only mentioned in passing without any discussion, even though it yields convergence rates that do not involve *any* dependence on the condition number in the leading term---thus achieving a much more significant improvement than the learning-rate schedule studied in this paper. In light of these results, learning-rate schedules are already being "re-thought" as we speak, and studying the behavior of the last iterate has received less attention in the past couple of years. If anything, the present paper only provides further evidence (through the negative result) that the individual iterates are ill-behaved in general and it is better to average the iterates instead. I would consider this negative result as an interesting addition to the stochastic-optimization literature, had it been presented in a completely different narrative (e.g., augmenting the discussion in "Stochastic gradient descent for non-smooth optimization: Convergence results and optimal averaging schemes" by Shamir and Zhang, 2013).
*** Exponentially decaying (or "constant-and-cut", as they are called here) schedules have actually been studied before in the paper "Beyond the Regret Minimization Barrier: Optimal Algorithms for Stochastic Strongly-Convex Optimization" by Hazan and Kale (JMLR 2014). This significantly weakens the main intended selling point of the paper which was being the first-ever study of such learning-rate schedules. The results in said paper are of a somewhat different nature, but they have arguably as little to do with deep learning as the results of the present paper has. Notably, both the present paper and the cited work rely on *strong convexity* of the objective (through assuming prior knowledge of the condition number), so I would expect that none of these results would explain anything in the context of deep learning.
On the technical side, the proofs appear to be correct but presented somewhat sloppily, with most of the notation appearing without proper definitions. For instance, the proof of Theorem 2 seems to import notation from the proof of Theorem 1, although without explicitly mentioning that the covariance matrix is assumed to be diagonal(ized). The proof of Theorem 3 then seems to again replace this previously (non-)established notation by another one (e.g., v becomes err and \eta becomes \gamma). The proofs also involve long sequences of inequalities without explanation, and only bound the variances (w_k-w^*_k)^2 without mentioning how this quantity is related to the excess risk. (The relation is well-known but not obvious at all for first-time readers of such proofs.)
One technical limitation of the results is that they assume a simple additive-noise model for the gradients, which the authors conveniently call "fairly natural" and incorrectly claim to hold for linear regression with well-specified models (footnote 8). In reality, the gradient noise in this setting also depends on the current iterate w_t, which makes analysis significantly harder. (To see the difference, just compare the complexity of the proofs of Lemma 1 and Theorem 2 that correspond to these different settings in "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger Convergence Rates for Least-Squares Regression" by Dieleveut, Flammarion and Bach, 2017.)
Overall, I don't think that this paper is fit for publication in its present form. Once again, I would suggest that in a future version, the authors focus solely on discussing the actual results without attempting to draw disproportionate conclusions from them.
Detailed comments
=================
- pp.1, abstract: the first half of the abstract is completely irrelevant to the rest of the paper, so I'd suggest removing it.
- pp.1, "learning-rate schedules for SGD is a rather enigmatic topic"---"enigmatic" feels like a bit of a strong adjective here, given that there are many aspects of learning-rate tuning that are actually pretty well-understood.
- pp.2: The second paragraph on page 2 is again irrelevant to the actual technical content of the paper.
- pp.2, "all the works in stochastic approximation try to bound the error of each iterate of SGD"---This is simply not true, given the growing literature concerning the behavior of the *averaged iterates*.
- pp.4, first display: poor typesetting.
- pp.6, Eqs. 1--3: ditto.
- pp.8, last paragraph: Singling out the particular setting of gradient-norm minimization feels arbitrary and poorly justified.
- pp.11: the first and second displays should be switched for better readability (otherwise the first one comes without explanation). Also note that this form is not just due to the algorithm design, but also to the simplified noise model.
- pp.12, App B: 
*** It appears that you forgot to mention here that you're working in the coordinate system induced by the eigenvectors, and also forgot to define the eigenvalues, etc. 
*** The indices (1) and (k) are incoherent in the first display. 
*** Although you promise you'll prove the inequality in the second display, you eventually prove something else.
*** It is not very clear on first sight that \ell^* actually exists and falls within the scope of \ell---you should explain that it exists due to the choice of the number of phases. (Which, by the way, should be rounded up to allow this property?)
*** The sequence of inequalities in the last display seems correct but unnecessarily hard to verify due to the lack of explanations.