We consider function optimization as a sequential decision making problem under budget constraint. This constraint limits the number of objective function evaluations allowed during the optimization. We consider an algorithm inspired by a continuous version of a multi-armed bandit problem which attacks this optimization problem by solving the tradeoff between exploration (initial quasi-uniform search of the domain) and exploitation (local optimization around the potentially global maxima). We introduce the so-called Simultaneous Optimistic Optimization (SOO), a deterministic algorithm that works by domain partitioning. The benefit of such approach are the guarantees on the returned solution and the numerical efficiency of the algorithm. We present this machine learning approach to optimization, and provide the empirical assessment of SOO on the CEC'2014 competition on single objective real-parameter numerical optimization test-suite.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Contemporary advances in the field of deep learning have embarked upon an exploration of the underlying geometric properties of data, thus encouraging the investigation of techniques that consider general manifolds, for example, hyperbolic or orthogonal neural networks. However, the optimization algorithms for training such geometric deep models still remain highly under-explored. In this paper, we introduce Riemannian SAM by generalizing conventional Euclidean SAM to Riemannian manifolds. We successfully formulate the sharpness-aware minimization on Riemannian manifolds, leading to one of a novel instantiation, Lorentz SAM. In addition, SAM variants proposed in previous studies such as Fisher SAM can be derived as special examples under our Riemannian SAM framework. We provide the convergence analysis of Riemannian SAM under a less aggressively decaying ascent learning rate than Euclidean SAM. Our analysis serves as a theoretically sound contribution encompassing a diverse range of manifolds, also providing the guarantees for SAM variants such as Fisher SAM, whose convergence analyses are absent. Lastly, we illustrate the superiority of Riemannian SAM in terms of generalization over previous Riemannian optimization algorithms through experiments on knowledge graph completion and machine translation tasks.

We revisit first-order optimization under local information constraints such as local privacy, gradient quantization, and computational constraints limiting access to a few coordinates of the gradient. In this setting, the optimization algorithm is not allowed to directly access the complete output of the gradient oracle, but only gets limited information about it subject to the local information constraints. We study the role of adaptivity in processing the gradient output to obtain this limited information from it. We consider optimization for both convex and strongly convex functions and obtain tight or nearly tight lower bounds for the convergence rate, when adaptive gradient processing is allowed. Prior work was restricted to convex functions and allowed only nonadaptive processing of gradients. For both of these function classes and for the three information constraints mentioned above, our lower bound implies that adaptive processing of gradients cannot outperform nonadaptive processing in most regimes of interest. We complement these results by exhibiting a natural optimization problem under information constraints for which adaptive processing of gradient strictly outperforms nonadaptive processing.

A.1 Proof of Monotonicity and Submodularity In Equation (3a), we stated the objective of the knapsack cover to be Remark 1. f+M is monotonically increasing. A.2 Knapsack Cover To find a solution to problem 3, we use the greedy algorithm proposed by Badanidiyuru and Vondrák [2], which deals with submodular maximization subject to a system of lknapsack constraints and with pmatroid constraints. We present an adapted version of the algorithm in Algorithm 2 where l = 1. Theparameter allows us to 16 trade-off solution time and solution quality. In this work, we set = 0.2.