A Subsampling Line-Search Method with Second-Order Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many contemporary optimization problems such as those arising in machine learning, it can be computationally challenging or even infeasible to evaluate an entire function or its derivatives. This motivates the use of stochastic algorithms that sample problem data, which can jeopardize the guarantees obtained through classical globalization techniques in optimization, such as a line search. Using subsampled function values is particularly challenging for the latter strategy, which relies upon multiple evaluations. For nonconvex data-related problems, such as training deep learning models, one aims at developing methods that converge to second-order stationary points quickly, that is, escape saddle points efficiently. This is particularly difficult to ensure when one only accesses subsampled approximations of the objective and its derivatives. In this paper, we describe a stochastic algorithm based on negative curvature and Newton-type directions that are computed for a subsampling model of the objective. A line-search technique is used to enforce suitable decrease for this model; for a sufficiently large sample, a similar amount of reduction holds for the true objective. We then present worst-case complexity guarantees for a notion of stationarity tailored to the subsampling context. Our analysis encompasses the deterministic regime and allows us to identify sampling requirements for second-order line-search paradigms. As we illustrate through real data experiments, these worst-case estimates need not be satisfied for our method to be competitive with first-order strategies in practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".