MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024230214

Stochastic Nested Variance Reduction for Nonconvex Optimization

2018· article· en· W3024230214 on OpenAlexaff
Dongruo Zhou, Pan Xu, Quanquan Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Information Processing Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicStochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariance reductionMathematicsCombinatoricsNabla symbolGradient descentFunction (biology)Stationary pointReduction (mathematics)Applied mathematicsMathematical analysisComputer sciencePhysicsGeometryStatisticsOmega
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study finite-sum nonconvex optimization problems, where the objective function is an average of $n$ nonconvex functions. We propose a new stochastic gradient descent algorithm based on nested variance reduction. Compared with conventional stochastic variance reduced gradient (SVRG) algorithm that uses two reference points to construct a semi-stochastic gradient with diminishing variance in each epoch, our algorithm uses $K+1$ nested reference points to build an semi-stochastic gradient to further reduce its variance in each epoch. For smooth functions, the proposed algorithm converges to an approximate first order stationary point (i.e., $\|\nabla F(\xb)\|_2\leq \epsilon$) within $\tO(n\land \epsilon^{-2}+\epsilon^{-3}\land n^{1/2}\epsilon^{-2})$\footnote{$\tO(\cdot)$ hides the logarithmic factors} number of stochastic gradient evaluations, where $n$ is the number of component functions, and $\epsilon$ is the optimization error. This improves the best known gradient complexity of SVRG $O(n+n^{2/3}\epsilon^{-2})$ and the best gradient complexity of SCSG $O(\epsilon^{-5/3}\land n^{2/3}\epsilon^{-2})$. For gradient dominated functions, our algorithm achieves $\tO(n\land \tau\epsilon^{-1}+\tau\cdot (n^{1/2}\land (\tau\epsilon^{-1})^{1/2})$ gradient complexity, which again beats the existing best gradient complexity $\tO(n\land \tau\epsilon^{-1}+\tau\cdot (n^{1/2}\land (\tau\epsilon^{-1})^{2/3})$ achieved by SCSG. Thorough experimental results on different nonconvex optimization problems back up 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural Information Processing SystemsSame topicStochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207