Many recent advances in machine learning are driven by a challenging trifecta: large data size $N$, high dimensions, and expensive algorithms. In this setting, cross-validation (CV) serves as an important tool for model assessment. Recent advances in approximate cross validation (ACV) provide accurate approximations to CV with only a single model fit, avoiding traditional CV's requirement for repeated runs of expensive algorithms. Unfortunately, these ACV methods can lose both speed and accuracy in high dimensions --- unless sparsity structure is present in the data. Fortunately, there is an alternative type of simplifying structure that is present in most data: approximate low rank (ALR).

Many modern data analyses benefit from explicitly modeling dependence structure in data -- such as measurements across time or space, ordered words in a sentence, or genes in a genome. A gold standard evaluation technique is structured cross-validation (CV), which leaves out some data subset (such as data within a time interval or data in a geographic region) in each fold. But CV here can be prohibitively slow due to the need to re-run already-expensive learning algorithms many times. Previous work has shown approximate cross-validation (ACV) methods provide a fast and provably accurate alternative in the setting of empirical risk minimization. But this existing ACV work is restricted to simpler models by the assumptions that (i) data across CV folds are independent and (ii) an exact initial model fit is available. In structured data analyses, both these assumptions are often untrue. In the present work, we address (i) by extending ACV to CV schemes with dependence structure between the folds. To address (ii), we verify -- both theoretically and empirically -- that ACV quality deteriorates smoothly with noise in the initial fit. We demonstrate the accuracy and computational benefits of our proposed methods on a diverse set of real-world applications.

Many modern data analyses benefit from explicitly modeling dependence structure in data -- such as measurements across time or space, ordered words in a sentence, or genes in a genome. A gold standard evaluation technique is structured cross-validation (CV), which leaves out some data subset (such as data within a time interval or data in a geographic region) in each fold. But CV here can be prohibitively slow due to the need to re-run already-expensive learning algorithms many times. Previous work has shown approximate cross-validation (ACV) methods provide a fast and provably accurate alternative in the setting of empirical risk minimization. But this existing ACV work is restricted to simpler models by the assumptions that (i) data across CV folds are independent and (ii) an exact initial model fit is available. In structured data analyses, both these assumptions are often untrue.

Weaknesses: I think the significance of the results (maybe because of the delivery of the result) is below the threshold of acceptance. 1) The first weakness is that there is no discussion about whether the upper bound (mentioned in the strengths) is tight and when this upper bound implies consistency, i,e., the error goes to 0 under a certain limit. Note that the norm of the true signal, the scale of the feature matrix, and the best tuning parameter need to satisfy certain order conditions such that the problem becomes meaningful. A common approach is to apply PCA and do feature selection first. Then, the authors should compare their results with prior works on the selected features. After response: I noticed corollary 1 and corollary 2. But these two corollaries together only cover the trivial case when sample size goes to infinity while the rank of feature matrix is bounded by constant.

Two reviewers agree that this submission represents an important contribution to the field. However, a third expressed significant concerns about the tightness of the presented bounds, the accommodation of matrices with growing rank, and behavior in the presence of principal component preprocessing. Please be sure to carefully review and address the concerns of all reviewers in the revision.

Correctness: Mostly correct with some misleading wording used as explained below. "But this existing ACV work is restricted to simpler models by the assumptions that (i) data are independent and (ii) an exact initial model fit is available. In structured data analyses, (i) is always untrue, and (ii) is often untrue." If we assume complete independence, there is no common model. It would be better to discuss conditional independence.

Many recent advances in machine learning are driven by a challenging trifecta: large data size N, high dimensions, and expensive algorithms. In this setting, cross-validation (CV) serves as an important tool for model assessment. Recent advances in approximate cross validation (ACV) provide accurate approximations to CV with only a single model fit, avoiding traditional CV's requirement for repeated runs of expensive algorithms. Unfortunately, these ACV methods can lose both speed and accuracy in high dimensions --- unless sparsity structure is present in the data. Fortunately, there is an alternative type of simplifying structure that is present in most data: approximate low rank (ALR).

Many modern data analyses benefit from explicitly modeling dependence structure in data -- such as measurements across time or space, ordered words in a sentence, or genes in a genome. A gold standard evaluation technique is structured cross-validation (CV), which leaves out some data subset (such as data within a time interval or data in a geographic region) in each fold. But CV here can be prohibitively slow due to the need to re-run already-expensive learning algorithms many times. Previous work has shown approximate cross-validation (ACV) methods provide a fast and provably accurate alternative in the setting of empirical risk minimization. But this existing ACV work is restricted to simpler models by the assumptions that (i) data across CV folds are independent and (ii) an exact initial model fit is available. In structured data analyses, both these assumptions are often untrue.

Cross-validation (CV) is a popular approach for assessing and selecting predictive models. However, when the number of folds is large, CV suffers from a need to repeatedly refit a learning procedure on a large number of training datasets. Recent work in empirical risk minimization (ERM) approximates the expensive refitting with a single Newton step warm-started from the full training set optimizer. While this can greatly reduce runtime, several open questions remain including whether these approximations lead to faithful model selection and whether they are suitable for non-smooth objectives. We address these questions with three main contributions: (i) we provide uniform non-asymptotic, deterministic model assessment guarantees for approximate CV; (ii) we show that (roughly) the same conditions also guarantee model selection performance comparable to CV; (iii) we provide a proximal Newton extension of the approximate CV framework for non-smooth prediction problems and develop improved assessment guarantees for problems such as l1-regularized ERM.