regularized linear autoencoder
Regularized linear autoencoders recover the principal components, eventually
Our understanding of learning input-output relationships with neural nets has improved rapidly in recent years, but little is known about the convergence of the underlying representations, even in the simple case of linear autoencoders (LAEs). We show that when trained with proper regularization, LAEs can directly learn the optimal representation -- ordered, axis-aligned principal components. We analyze two such regularization schemes: non-uniform L2 regularization and a deterministic variant of nested dropout [Rippel et al, ICML' 2014]. Though both regularization schemes converge to the optimal representation, we show that this convergence is slow due to ill-conditioning that worsens with increasing latent dimension. We show that the inefficiency of learning the optimal representation is not inevitable -- we present a simple modification to the gradient descent update that greatly speeds up convergence empirically.
Regularized linear autoencoders recover the principal components, eventually
Our understanding of learning input-output relationships with neural nets has improved rapidly in recent years, but little is known about the convergence of the underlying representations, even in the simple case of linear autoencoders (LAEs). We show that when trained with proper regularization, LAEs can directly learn the optimal representation -- ordered, axis-aligned principal components. We analyze two such regularization schemes: non-uniform L2 regularization and a deterministic variant of nested dropout [Rippel et al, ICML' 2014]. Though both regularization schemes converge to the optimal representation, we show that this convergence is slow due to ill-conditioning that worsens with increasing latent dimension. We show that the inefficiency of learning the optimal representation is not inevitable -- we present a simple modification to the gradient descent update that greatly speeds up convergence empirically.
Review for NeurIPS paper: Regularized linear autoencoders recover the principal components, eventually
Summary and Contributions: Post-rebuttal update: Thank you for clarifying on the motivation of this work as well as the mistake in proof. I'm updating my score since the two-stage convergence behavior is interesting, and the proposed algorithm has interesting connections to prior work. However, I'm not sure if the modified linear AE model is the best model to understand the slowness of learning NN representations, as the regularization schemes seem somewhat artificial and doesn't seem to correspond to any commonly-used algorithms. From a probabilistic perspective, it's also unclear why we would assign an arbitrary non-uniform prior when we don't have any knowledge about their scales, e.g. is there any gain from choosing a more correct prior about the scales? I think further discussion on these issues would greatly enhance this work.
Review for NeurIPS paper: Regularized linear autoencoders recover the principal components, eventually
This paper investigates ways for the regularized linear autoencoder to recover the original principal components of a matrix, and it shows that non-uniform L2 regularization and nested dropout lead to such recovery, ordinary GD using these objectives suffers from slow convergence, a new alternative optimization algorithm can accelerate convergence, and this new algorithm is connected to a Hebbian algorithm. The paper is well written and makes a nice contribution. All reviewers were positive, and several reviewers improved their scores in light of the author responses and subsequent discussion.
Regularized linear autoencoders recover the principal components, eventually
Our understanding of learning input-output relationships with neural nets has improved rapidly in recent years, but little is known about the convergence of the underlying representations, even in the simple case of linear autoencoders (LAEs). We show that when trained with proper regularization, LAEs can directly learn the optimal representation -- ordered, axis-aligned principal components. We analyze two such regularization schemes: non-uniform L2 regularization and a deterministic variant of nested dropout [Rippel et al, ICML' 2014]. Though both regularization schemes converge to the optimal representation, we show that this convergence is slow due to ill-conditioning that worsens with increasing latent dimension. We show that the inefficiency of learning the optimal representation is not inevitable -- we present a simple modification to the gradient descent update that greatly speeds up convergence empirically.
Loss Landscapes of Regularized Linear Autoencoders
Kunin, Daniel, Bloom, Jonathan M., Goeva, Aleksandrina, Seed, Cotton
Autoencoders are a deep learning model for representation learning. When trained to minimize the Euclidean distance between the data and its reconstruction, linear autoencoders (LAEs) learn the subspace spanned by the top principal directions but cannot learn the principal directions themselves. In this paper, we prove that $L_2$-regularized LAEs learn the principal directions as the left singular vectors of the decoder, providing an extremely simple and scalable algorithm for rank-$k$ SVD. More generally, we consider LAEs with (i) no regularization, (ii) regularization of the composition of the encoder and decoder, and (iii) regularization of the encoder and decoder separately. We relate the minimum of (iii) to the MAP estimate of probabilistic PCA and show that for all critical points the encoder and decoder are transposes. Building on topological intuition, we smoothly parameterize the critical manifolds for all three losses via a novel unified framework and illustrate these results empirically. Overall, this work clarifies the relationship between autoencoders and Bayesian models and between regularization and orthogonality.
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Stanford (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.68)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.54)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Learning Graphical Models > Directed Networks > Bayesian Learning (0.34)