basic inequality
Basic Inequalities for First-Order Optimization with Applications to Statistical Risk Analysis
Paik, Seunghoon, Zhou, Kangjie, Telgarsky, Matus, Tibshirani, Ryan J.
We introduce \textit{basic inequalities} for first-order iterative optimization algorithms, forming a simple and versatile framework that connects implicit and explicit regularization. While related inequalities appear in the literature, we isolate and highlight a specific form and develop it as a well-rounded tool for statistical analysis. Let $f$ denote the objective function to be optimized. Given a first-order iterative algorithm initialized at $θ_0$ with current iterate $θ_T$, the basic inequality upper bounds $f(θ_T)-f(z)$ for any reference point $z$ in terms of the accumulated step sizes and the distances between $θ_0$, $θ_T$, and $z$. The bound translates the number of iterations into an effective regularization coefficient in the loss function. We demonstrate this framework through analyses of training dynamics and prediction risk bounds. In addition to revisiting and refining known results on gradient descent, we provide new results for mirror descent with Bregman divergence projection, for generalized linear models trained by gradient descent and exponentiated gradient descent, and for randomized predictors. We illustrate and supplement these theoretical findings with experiments on generalized linear models.
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > New York (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Alameda County > Berkeley (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
Acceleration via Symplectic Discretization of High-Resolution Differential Equations
Shi, Bin, Du, Simon S., Su, Weijie J., Jordan, Michael I.
We study first-order optimization methods obtained by discretizing ordinary differential equations (ODEs) corresponding to Nesterov's accelerated gradient methods (NAGs) and Polyak's heavy-ball method. We consider three discretization schemes: an explicit Euler scheme, an implicit Euler scheme, and a symplectic scheme. We show that the optimization algorithm generated by applying the symplectic scheme to a high-resolution ODE proposed by Shi et al. [2018] achieves an accelerated rate for minimizing smooth strongly convex functions. On the other hand, the resulting algorithm either fails to achieve acceleration or is impractical when the scheme is implicit, the ODE is low-resolution, or the scheme is explicit.
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Alameda County > Berkeley (0.04)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia County > Philadelphia (0.04)
- (4 more...)
Non-parametric Sparse Additive Auto-regressive Network Models
Zhou, Hao Henry, Raskutti, Garvesh
Consider a multi-variate time series $(X_t)_{t=0}^{T}$ where $X_t \in \mathbb{R}^d$ which may represent spike train responses for multiple neurons in a brain, crime event data across multiple regions, and many others. An important challenge associated with these time series models is to estimate an influence network between the $d$ variables, especially when the number of variables $d$ is large meaning we are in the high-dimensional setting. Prior work has focused on parametric vector auto-regressive models. However, parametric approaches are somewhat restrictive in practice. In this paper, we use the non-parametric sparse additive model (SpAM) framework to address this challenge. Using a combination of $\beta$ and $\phi$-mixing properties of Markov chains and empirical process techniques for reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHSs), we provide upper bounds on mean-squared error in terms of the sparsity $s$, logarithm of the dimension $\log d$, number of time points $T$, and the smoothness of the RKHSs. Our rates are sharp up to logarithm factors in many cases. We also provide numerical experiments that support our theoretical results and display potential advantages of using our non-parametric SpAM framework for a Chicago crime dataset.
- North America > United States > Illinois > Cook County > Chicago (0.25)
- North America > United States > New York (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Wisconsin > Dane County > Madison (0.04)