MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962969822

Third-order Smoothness Helps: Faster Stochastic Optimization Algorithms for Finding Local Minima

2018· article· en· W2962969822 on OpenAlexaff
Yaodong Yu, Pan Xu, Quanquan Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Information Processing Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaxima and minimaNabla symbolMathematicsSmoothnessSaddle pointOrder (exchange)CombinatoricsDegenerate energy levelsStochastic optimizationAlgorithmMathematical optimizationPhysicsMathematical analysisOmegaGeometryQuantum mechanics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose stochastic optimization algorithms that can find local minima faster than existing algorithms for nonconvex optimization problems, by exploiting the third-order smoothness to escape non-degenerate saddle points more efficiently. More specifically, the proposed algorithm only needs $\tilde{O}(\epsilon^{-10/3})$ stochastic gradient evaluations to converge to an approximate local minimum $\mathbf{x}$, which satisfies $\|\nabla f(\mathbf{x})\|_2\leq\epsilon$ and $\lambda_{\min}(\nabla^2 f(\mathbf{x}))\geq -\sqrt{\epsilon}$ in unconstrained stochastic optimization, where $\tilde{O}(\cdot)$ hides logarithm polynomial terms and constants. This improves upon the $\tilde{O}(\epsilon^{-7/2})$ gradient complexity achieved by the state-of-the-art stochastic local minima finding algorithms by a factor of $\tilde{O}(\epsilon^{-1/6})$. Experiments on two nonconvex optimization problems demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm and corroborate our theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural Information Processing SystemsSame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207