tolerance
On the Local Minima of the Empirical Risk
Population risk is always of primary interest in machine learning; however, learning algorithms only have access to the empirical risk. Even for applications with nonconvex non-smooth losses (such as modern deep networks), the population risk is generally significantly more well behaved from an optimization point of view than the empirical risk. In particular, sampling can create many spurious local minima. We consider a general framework which aims to optimize a smooth nonconvex function $F$ (population risk) given only access to an approximation $f$ (empirical risk) that is pointwise close to $F$ (i.e., $\norm{F-f}_{\infty} \le \nu$). Our objective is to find the $\epsilon$-approximate local minima of the underlying function $F$ while avoiding the shallow local minima---arising because of the tolerance $\nu$---which exist only in $f$. We propose a simple algorithm based on stochastic gradient descent (SGD) on a smoothed version of $f$ that is guaranteed to achieve our goal as long as $\nu \le O(\epsilon^{1.5}/d)$. We also provide an almost matching lower bound showing that our algorithm achieves optimal error tolerance $\nu$ among all algorithms making a polynomial number of queries of $f$. As a concrete example, we show that our results can be directly used to give sample complexities for learning a ReLU unit.
- Asia > Taiwan (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Robots (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Optimization (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Agents (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Reinforcement Learning (0.94)
- Health & Medicine (0.68)
- Information Technology > Services (0.67)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Communications > Social Media (0.69)
- Information Technology > Data Science > Data Mining > Big Data (0.47)
- North America > United States > Louisiana > Orleans Parish > New Orleans (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- North America > Canada > British Columbia (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks (1.00)
- Information Technology > Software > Programming Languages (0.93)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Mathematical & Statistical Methods (0.66)
bbc92a647199b832ec90d7cf57074e9e-Supplemental.pdf
Before defining our algorithm at each iterationt we first lighten our notation with a shorthandba(X) = b(ˆp(t 1)(X),a) (at different iterationt, ba denotes different functions), andb(X) is the vector of (b1(X),,bK(X)). For the intuition of the algorithm, consider the t-th iteration where the current prediction function is ˆp(t 1). Thestatement of the theorem is identical; the proof is also essentially the same except for the use of some new technicaltools. Conversely, if ˆp is LB decision calibrated, then kE[p (X) ˆp(X)|U]k1 = 0 almost surely (because if the expectation of a non-negative random variable is zero, the random variable must be zero almost surely), which implies thatˆp is distributioncalibrated. For BKa we use the VC dimension approach.