Nonconvex methods have emerged as a dominant approach for low-rank matrix estimation, a problem that arises widely in machine learning and AI for learning and representing high-dimensional data. Existing analyses for these methods often require additional regularization to mitigate nonconvexity, even though such regularization is often unnecessary in practice. Moreover, most analyses rely on problem-specific arguments that are difficult to generalize to more complex settings. In this paper, we develop a theoretical framework for studying nonconvex procedures across a broad class of low-rank matrix estimation problems. Rather than focusing on a specific model, we reveal a fundamental mechanism that explains why nonconvex procedures can behave well in low-rank estimation. Our key device is a {\it benign regularizer} that does not alter the original update rule, but yields an equivalent locally strongly convex formulation of the algorithm. This perspective uncovers a disguised convexity inherent in the nonconvex procedure and provides a new route to theoretical guarantees for nonconvex low-rank matrix estimation.

However, it is often argued that correct predictions in the tail are more "interesting" or "rewarding," but the community has not yet settled on a metric capturing this intuitive concept.

However, it is often argued that correct predictions in the tail are more "interesting" or "rewarding," but the community has not yet settled on a metric capturing this intuitive concept.

Extreme multi-label classification (XMLC) is the task of selecting a small subset of relevant labels from a very large set of possible labels. As such, it is characterized by long-tail labels, i.e., most labels have very few positive instances. With standard performance measures such as precision@k, a classifier can ignore tail labels and still report good performance. However, it is often argued that correct predictions in the tail are more "interesting" or "rewarding," but the community has not yet settled on a metric capturing this intuitive concept. The existing propensity-scored metrics fall short on this goal by confounding the problems of long-tail and missing labels. In this paper, we analyze generalized metrics budgeted "at k" as an alternative solution. To tackle the challenging problem of optimizing these metrics, we formulate it in the expected test utility (ETU) framework, which aims to optimize the expected performance on a fixed test set. We derive optimal prediction rules and construct computationally efficient approximations with provable regret guarantees and robustness against model misspecification. Our algorithm, based on block coordinate ascent, scales effortlessly to XMLC problems and obtains promising results in terms of long-tail performance.